The Project Gutenberg eBook of The early history of Piccadilly, Leicester Square, Soho, & their neighbourhood This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. Title: The early history of Piccadilly, Leicester Square, Soho, & their neighbourhood based on a plan drawn in 1585 Author: Charles Lethbridge Kingsford Release date: October 13, 2026 [eBook #79777] Language: English Original publication: Cambridge: University Press, 1925 Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/79777 Credits: deaurider and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) *** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE EARLY HISTORY OF PICCADILLY, LEICESTER SQUARE, SOHO, & THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD *** [Illustration: ROCQUE’S MAP OF 1763] THE EARLY HISTORY OF PICCADILLY LEICESTER SQUARE SOHO & THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD BASED ON A PLAN DRAWN IN 1585 AND PUBLISHED BY THE LONDON TOPOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY IN 1925 BY CHARLES LETHBRIDGE KINGSFORD _Fellow of the British Academy Vice-President of the London Topographical Society_ CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1925 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON: Fetter Lane [Illustration] NEW YORK The Macmillan Co. BOMBAY, CALCUTTA and MADRAS Macmillan and Co., Ltd. TORONTO The Macmillan Co. of Canada, Ltd. TOKYO Maruzen-Kabushiki-Kaisha All rights reserved PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN PREFACE The primary purpose of this book is to give an account of a Plan drawn in 1585, a full-scale reproduction of which was recently published by the London Topographical Society. When I was asked by the Council of the Society to prepare such an account, I found soon that it would be imperfect unless the history was carried on far enough to bring out the relation of the Plan to the future streets. Thus the book fell naturally into two parts. The first deals with the history of the Land before the Houses, and the circumstances under which the Plan was made. The second and longer part is concerned with the Building of the Streets, that is with tracing the process by which within a little over 100 years after the Plan was drawn the whole area came to be covered with streets and houses. To have carried the history beyond that point would have involved a much larger undertaking and would not have been strictly relevant to the Plan. Nevertheless it has not seemed impertinent to give some brief account of the principal buildings that were originally erected, and to mark the subsequent changes in the streets. The chief sources of original material are to be found in the Record Office, and more particularly in the documents relating to the lawsuit about Gelding’s Close, which are printed in the Appendix. In addition there is much that is of value in the State Papers for the seventeenth century (the printed _Calendars_ are not unnaturally inadequate for the present purpose), and in the Parliamentary Surveys made in 1650-52; of these last one is given in the Appendix and the others are quoted freely in the text. Further material has been derived from the records at the Guildhall, the Ratebooks and Churchwardens Accounts of St Martin-in-the-Fields, and for the early history from the Muniments of Westminster Abbey. Where original sources have been used references are given. Of printed sources Mr J. V. Kitto’s _Churchwardens Accounts of St Martin-in-the-Fields_, 1525-1603, is valuable for the period which it covers. For the seventeenth century _Strafford’s Letters_ (particularly those written by George Garrard) and the _Diaries_ of Evelyn and Pepys are often of service. At the close Hatton’s _New View of London_ and Strype’s edition of Stow’s _Survey_ are valuable, especially for their descriptions of recently built streets; these descriptions are interesting as showing the original character of the buildings, and I have therefore made a point of quoting them freely; for these two works it has not seemed necessary to multiply precise references which can be easily traced. It must, however, be remembered that the compilation of such a work as Hatton’s _New View_ and still more of Strype’s _Survey_ was of necessity spread over a prolonged period. Consequently statements are sometimes found in both works which manifestly relate to an earlier time than the date of publication. Where this could be shown attention has been called to the fact. But probably in some other instances also statements occur which should be dated earlier than the years of publication in 1708 and 1720. Amongst modern books, in addition to _London Past and Present_, the most important are H. B. Wheatley’s _Round About Piccadilly_ (1870); Mr Arthur Dasent’s _History of St James’s Square_ (1895) and _Piccadilly_ (1920); E. F. Rimbault’s _Soho and its Associations_ (1895); Mr John McMaster’s _History of St Martin-in-the-Fields_ (1916); and _The Parish of St Giles-in-the-Fields_ published by the Survey Committee of the London County Council in 1912-14. To all of these I am in a greater or less degree indebted. But I have not as a rule thought it needful to give references for information derived from these works, and still less to particularize points on which in the light of new material correction has been requisite. In addition to records and books a comparative study of the maps of London from Agas to Rocque has furnished much valuable guidance. For the better understanding of these maps a more detailed description has been given in the Appendix. My special thanks are due to the City Lands Committee for permission to consult the documents relating to the Conduit Estate in the Comptroller’s Office at the Guildhall. I have also to thank Mr A. H. Thomas, the Records Clerk at the Guildhall, the officers at the Westminster City Hall, the Rev. H. F. Westlake, custodian of Westminster Abbey, and Mr C. T. Clay, librarian to the House of Lords, for their courteous assistance when consulting the records in their charge. The Society is indebted to Mr J. V. Kitto for calling their attention to the Plan of 1585. A photographic facsimile on a reduced scale is given at the end of this book; those who desire further information should refer to the full-scale reproduction published by the London Topographical Society. The overprint showing the relation of the existing streets to the Plan of 1585 has been prepared by Mr T. O. Thirtle, A.R.I.B.A., whom I desire to thank for the pains and care which he bestowed on this work. C. L. KINGSFORD _August 1925_ CONTENTS PREFACE v PART I: THE LAND BEFORE THE HOUSES 1. Introductory 1 2. The Abingdon Lands 2 3. The Burton Lazar Lands 5 4. The Mercers Lands 7 5. St Martin’s Field 12 6. The Lands in the possession of the Crown 15 7. The Lawsuit about Gelding’s Close 17 8. The Parties and Witnesses to the Suit 21 9. The heirs of Golightly and Robert Baker 24 10. The Description of the Plan of 1585 27 PART II: THE BUILDING OF THE STREETS 1. St Giles’s Church and Town 32 2. Marshland Close and Seven Dials 36 3. Long Acre 38 4. Covent Garden 40 5. St Martin’s Church and Town 41 6. St Martin’s Lane 46 7. The Mews and its Precincts 49 8. Leicester Square and Castle Street 52 9. The Military Garden and Newport House 57 10. St Giles’s Field and Soho 63 11. The Original Piccadilly 71 12. Shaver’s Hall: The Seventeenth Century Gaming-House 79 13. Suffolk Buildings and James Street 86 14. The Haymarket 92 15. St James’s Square and its Neighbourhood 94 16. The Later Piccadilly 97 17. Colonel Panton’s Buildings in Windmill Field 111 18. The Neighbourhood of Golden Square 114 19. Wardour Street to Regent Street 118 20. The Origin of Regent Street 124 21. The District West of Regent Street 127 22. The Oxford Road 134 23. Street-Planning and the Plan of 1585 136 APPENDIX: I. The Documents relating to the Lawsuit about Gelding’s Close 141 II. Survey of the Houses at “Pickadilley” in 1651 159 III. The Early Maps of London 161 INDEX 165 ILLUSTRATIONS Rocque’s Map of 1763 _Frontispiece_ St Giles-in-the-Fields 40 From Hollar’s _View of West Central London, c. 1658_ Charing Cross to Piccadilly 50 From Faithorne’s Map, 1658 St Martin and St Giles 54 From the Agas Map, _c._ 1570 Leicester Square, looking north, in 1721 56 From an engraving by Sutton Nicholls Soho Square, looking north 68 From an engraving by Sutton Nicholls Piccadilly and St Giles’s 74 From Faithorne’s Map, 1658 Morden and Lea’s Map of 1682 80 The James Street Tennis-Court 90 From a drawing by T. H. Shepherd in 1850 St James’s Square 96 From an engraving by Sutton Nicholls The White Bear Inn, Piccadilly 101 From a drawing by T. H. Shepherd in 1850 Old Burlington House in 1707 104 From an engraving by J. Kip after a drawing by L. Knyff Clarendon or Albemarle House 106 From an engraving by W. Skilman after a drawing by J. Spilbergh Golden Square, looking north, in 1731 117 From an engraving by Sutton Nicholls Major Foubert’s Riding-School 126 From a drawing by C. Tomkins in 1801 From Philip Lea’s Map of London as now rebuilt after the late Fire, _c._ 1673 137 The Plan of 1585, with an overprint showing _At the end_ its relation to the modern streets NOTE. Shepherd’s drawings are in the Crace Collection, and Tomkins’ drawing in Crowle’s Pennant, both in the Print-Room at the British Museum. PART I THE LAND BEFORE THE HOUSES § 1. INTRODUCTORY The Plan which furnishes the basis for the history to be given here covers an area of about three-quarters of a square mile, extending from a little east of St Martin’s Lane to a line some distance west of Bond Street; on the north-east it takes in the church and village of St Giles-in-the-Fields, and on the south-east the church of St Martin and the houses about Charing Cross. The Plan was drawn in 1585 to illustrate a lawsuit as to the ownership of a piece of land called Gelding’s Close, which like the greater part of the lands shown in the Plan was held by lease from the Crown. The rights of the Crown being thus involved it became necessary to determine what were the bounds and what were the tenures of the lands belonging to the Queen. All the Crown lands, with the exception of the Mews, which had been royal property from an early date, had been acquired by Henry VIII about 1536. The chief acquisitions had been made from Abingdon Abbey, the Hospital of Burton Lazar, to which St Giles’s Hospital belonged, and the Mercers Company of London. Other lands were acquired from Westminster Abbey, or as parcel of the Hospital of St James, or from a variety of private individuals. Originally the greater part of the land had belonged to Westminster Abbey, and was in the parish of St Margaret, Westminster, to which St Martin-in-the-Fields was subordinate. It was not till 7th March 1542 that Henry VIII, to avoid “danger of infection which might happen to our Court by the carrying of dead bodies past our royal palace to be interred at St Margaret’s,” constituted St Martin-in-the-Fields an independent parish[1]. The change of parishes subsequently gave rise to some question as to where lands anciently described as in St Margaret’s were really situate. Almost all the lands shown in the Plan were anciently common-fields, in which, however, enclosures had been made at an early date. But these enclosures had to lie open for pasture after Lammas in every year. Hence, when at a later time the land was built over, compensation in the shape of Lammas money became payable to the parish. Between the vills or town-places of St Martin and St Giles lay St Martin’s Field and St Giles’s Field. These were bounded on the west by Colman Hedge Lane, corresponding to the modern Whitcomb Street and Wardour Street. On the west of the upper part of Colman Hedge Lane was the Windmill Field, extending to Sugg or Shrug Lane and the roadway which developed into Regent Street. West of this roadway was The Great Common Field, a considerable part of which was also called the Conduit Meadow, reaching as far as the Tyburn brook. The northern and southern boundaries of these last Fields as shown in the Plan were formed by the road from Uxbridge (Oxford Street) and the road from Colnbrook (Piccadilly). South of the latter road was St James’s Field. On the east of the roadway which became the Haymarket there were two small closes. At the end of the fifteenth century the greater part of the enclosed land belonged to Abingdon Abbey, the Hospital of Burton Lazar, and the Mercers Company. These it will be convenient to refer to as the Abingdon Lands, the Burton Lazar Lands, and the Mercers Lands. Other lands belonged to Westminster Abbey or to the Hospital of St James. For these last there is no early history with which we need here be specially concerned[2]. § 2. THE ABINGDON LANDS The Abingdon Lands had belonged originally to Westminster Abbey, but at the beginning of the fourteenth century had been demised, subject to some small rents, to William Charles, son of Sir Edward Charles. In 1305 Joan, widow of William Charles, held a messuage and 32 acres of land of the Abbot of Westminster, rendering 10_s._ rent to the abbey, 5_s._ to the Church of St Margaret, and 10_d._ to Master William de Wauden[3]. In 1334 Joan’s son William Charles sold the messuage and land to Sir John Stonor; the property is then described as situate in the vills of Westminster and Eybury[4]. At Stonor’s death in 1354 he was found to have held a messuage and 60 acres of land with their appurtenances in Westminster, paying 10_s._ rent to the abbey. In 1390 his great-grandson, another John Stonor, was found to have held a tenement with its appurtenances called La Mote in Westminster, yielding 46_s._ 8_d._ in rents, and a barn with 60 acres of land; the whole being held of the Abbot of Westminster[5]. The manor of La Mote remained in the possession of the Stonors till 1478, when Sir William Stonor sold it to the Abbot of Abingdon. In the agreement for sale it is described simply as “the manor called The Moote in the parish of St Margaret in the town of Westminster with all the appurtenances belonging thereto.” But in a Recovery made for the purpose of the sale it appears as the manor of The Mote with eight messuages, a garden,[6]--acres of land and 20 acres of meadow in the town of Westminster and the parishes of St Giles and St Martin-in-the-Fields[7]. In August 1490 “Mote Place” in Westminster was in the King’s hands through the treason of the late Abbot of Abingdon[8]. However, the abbey recovered its property before 1495, when it paid rent to Westminster for The Mote[9], and held it till 1536, when it was purchased by Henry VIII. The house called The Mote was on the west side of King Street; the actual house seems to have stood back from the street, as there were two shops with a garden on the east side of it. Probably it had a gate-house in King Street, and the rest of the frontage was let in subordinate tenements. In 1382 Edmund Stonor held four shops in Westminster of the abbot; we also hear of a tenement in King Street lately called “Stonor’s.”[10] The lands of the manor lay partly in St James’s Fields and partly in the district between St Martin’s and St Giles’s. In the Westminster Abbey muniments there is reference to a garden “late Stonor’s now the Abbot of Abingdon’s”[11]; from the description it must have been to the east of St Martin’s Church, for it was bounded on the south by a house which was opposite to Norwich Inn, and the site of that Inn was immediately east of the present Charing Cross Station. It is not, however, possible to identify this garden with any of the known Abingdon Lands. The chief medieval document which throws precise light on the position of the Stonor or Abingdon Lands is a deed of 1391 which shows that a part of them lay in The Great Common Field and the Windmill Field[12]. There were two smaller parcels in St Giles’s Field and in St Martin’s Field. These are the Abingdon Lands with which we shall be concerned. A further piece of 13 acres lay in the western part of St James’s Fields outside the area covered by the Plan. When the Abingdon Lands were acquired by Henry VIII in 1536 they were described as 60 acres of arable in the parish of St Margaret’s, Westminster[13]. This no doubt included all the lands which had belonged to The Mote. In 1585 they were stated to include seven separate parcels. The first was a narrow strip of under one acre in Windmill Field, bounded on the south by the Windmill, the land of Widow Golightly and Mr Wilson and some of the Burton Lazar land, whilst on the east it abutted on Colman Hedge Lane. The second, which is sometimes called The Four Acres, was also in Windmill Field, and had lands of Mr Wilson on the north, east and south, with land of St James’s on the west. The third, which was known as Stone Conduit Close, was on the north side of the way from Colnbrook (now Piccadilly) and lay between the land of St James’s on the west, of Mr Wilson on the north, and of Widow Golightly on the east; its area was nearly nine acres. The fourth was a small close of under two acres “At The Grauell pitts” in The Great Common Field. The fifth was a narrow strip, a little over one acre, between the land of Widow Golightly and the Round Ryngles, also in The Great Common Field. The sixth was a long piece in St Giles’s Field on the east side of Colman Hedge Lane. These closes make up about 21 acres. The 13 acres in St James’s Field are described as “not in the plotte.”[14] Some land in St Martin’s Field is not included in this description, and we only hear of it in another connexion. It will be noted that the total falls far short of 60 acres; the residue will have comprised the land about the Mote house, and the garden near St Martin’s, and possibly other lands which have not been traced. § 3. THE BURTON LAZAR LANDS The Burton Lazar Lands were part of the endowment of St Giles’s Hospital, and had no doubt belonged to it from an early date. Parton in his _History of St Giles_[15] gave a list of the lands of St Giles’s Hospital from the Cartulary in Harley MS, 4015 at the British Museum. But his attempted identification of the lands is based on a very inaccurately reconstructed map[16], which does not represent anything that can ever have existed. That map differs altogether from the Plan of 1585. Having regard to the permanence of such features there can be no doubt that the Plan represents both fields and roadways substantially as they existed during the whole history of St Giles’s Hospital from 1117 to 1547. In Parton’s list 27 pieces of land are given as situated in the Fields of Westminster and at Charing. The Fields of Westminster must mean those fields which lay in St Margaret’s parish (and after 1542 in St Martin’s), viz. in St Giles’s Field, St Martin’s Field and in that part of Windmill Field which is sometimes called Colman Hedge Field. Of the parcels of land described many seem to have been in St Giles’s Field. Thus an acre of ground given by Henry de Belgrave is described as lying as one goes from the Hospital towards Coliereshage[17] (Colman Hedge) on the straight path, and extended from Eldestrate (Hog Lane) to the said path[18]. Another piece called Longesmale butted west on Colemanneshegge Lane, and a similar western boundary is given for other pieces. Other parcels adjoined the Hospital garden and were probably in the close on the south of the Hospital. All these lands were acquired during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but in the absence of precise information as to the bounds and areas it would be hopeless to attempt to fit them together. In the case of two other parcels there is reference in fourteenth century deeds to the field called Le Merslade or Le Meryslande; this is no doubt Marshland. In another source under date 1429 we find land described as situated in the field called Merslade between the land of the Hospital of St Giles and land of the Abbot of Westminster[19]. The lands given by Parton as “Apud Cherryng” were: first a walled garden containing four acres of arable “juxta les Muwes”; this may be the land which we know that the Hospital held in St Martin’s Field. It was given to the Hospital by Juliana de Stowe, who also gave nine acres of arable, of which three lay in the field adjoining the way which goes “juxta Charyng usque Knyghtsbrugge” and were on the north of the road called Spitalstrate[20]. Two other parcels were in the same field, and another had the way from Knightbrugge to St Giles on the north side, and yet another half acre lay by Colmanhegge on the east of the land of Edward Charles. The way beside Charing to Knightsbridge may perhaps mean the way from St Giles to Knightsbridge passing near Charing; in that case the first three parcels may have been in the south part of St Giles’s Field, which was afterwards called Camps Close; Spitalstrate will then be the lane on its south side. Some other part of the lands may have been in Colman Hedge Field or St Martin’s Field. Parton placed all these latter lands in the area between Hedge Lane and the present Haymarket, or in St James’s Field. This is quite impossible, and there is no evidence that St Giles’s Hospital ever had any lands so far west. In the uncertainty of the description and early history of these lands we must seek our first precise knowledge of the Burton Lazar Lands in the account of them as acquired by Henry VIII. Henry VIII in 1536[21] acquired by exchange from the Master of Burton Lazar: (1) 25 acres[22] in two parcels in St Giles’s Field, bounded north by the highway from Uxbridge, south by the highway from Knightsbridge to St Giles, east by a lane (Hog Lane) connecting the two highways, and west by a parcel of Abingdon Lands and Colman Hedge Lane; this is marked on the Plan as B. 1. (2) Two acres in St Martin’s Field; not shown in the Plan. (3) A close of five acres next Colmanhedge Close; this was at the north end of Colman Hedge Lane, and is marked B. 2. (4) Five acres of pasture in Colman Hedge Field; this is B. 3. (5) Marshland. (6) Conduit Close; five acres near St Giles’s Church. There were several other lands farther east which do not come in the Plan. § 4. THE MERCERS LANDS The Mercers Lands are not specifically described as such on the Plan or in the relative documents, though alluded to incidentally in the latter. Their history goes back to the fourteenth century, when John Bosham, citizen and mercer of London, on 12th December 1391 enfeoffed Denys Lopham, clerk, Robert Guppey and John Lane, mercers, and Richard Forster, citizen of London, in 52 acres of arable and 12 acres of meadow called Pantersmede, lying between the meadow of the Abbey of Westminster[23] on the west, land of the Hospital of St Giles and the King’s way called Suggen Lane on the east, and the lands of Edmund Stonor[24], William Norton and the Hospital of St James on the south, and the highway on the north: also in 20 acres of arable lying between the highway on the north, the land of St Giles on the east, and the lands of Edmund Stonor, St Giles and St James on the south and Suggen Lane on the west; also in three acres of arable bounded by the highway on the north and by the lands of Edmund Stonor on the east, west and south; also in a croft called Muwes Croft containing two acres of arable and butting on the wall of the Mews south, and in part east, and bounded by the highway on the west; also in five acres lying as far as the highway on the north, the land of Edmund Stonor east, the land of St Giles’s Hospital south and Colman Hedge west. Two days previously Forster had made an enfeoffment to Bosham of the same lands, which he and Robert Warbulton, Thomas Austyn and John Shadworth, mercers, had by an enfeoffment from John Dane, another mercer. In April 1398 Lopham, Guppey and Lane made a release of the lands to Richard Forster and others[25]. It is clear that these transactions related to lands which were held in trust for the Mercers, at a time when the Company had no power to hold land for itself. In spite of some difficulty due to uncertainty and possible inaccuracy in the bounds there is no doubt that the lands held for the Mercers in 1391 include those which are marked W. on the Plan of 1585. Suggen Lane seems to have been used in 1391 of the whole of the lane between the Uxbridge and Colnbrook roads[26]. The 52 acres on the west of the Lane are only represented in part by the lands marked W., which amount to less than 27 acres; but we know that 27 acres in Conduit Mead had also belonged to the Mercers and thus we get approximately the right area; the bounds on the south would have been Stone Conduit Close (Abingdon land then held by the heirs of Edmund Stonor), the adjoining land of St James, and farther west presumably the land of William Norton; the principal eastern boundary would have been Suggen Lane. The deed of 1391 seems to imply that Pantersmede was west of Suggen Lane, but since one eastern boundary was land of St Giles we must look elsewhere; if Pantersmede is identified with the close of W. land at the north-east corner of Suggen Lane, it may have reached to the St Giles’s land B. 2. The 20 acres of arable on the east of Suggen Lane will be represented by the other W. lands in Windmill Field[27], the total area of which was a little over 18 acres; if to this we add the 13 acres in the close at the north-west we get a total of nearly 32 acres to represent the 12 acres of Pantersmede and the 20 acres of arable; the bounds as given will be reasonably if not precisely accurate. The three acres of arable bounded on the highway north and the lands of Edmund Stonor on the other three sides are difficult to identify on the description given; their position was uncertain in 1650[28]; they seem to be the same as the “three acres of arable land at Cleypittes” which were described about 1540 as purchased of the Mercers[29]; so far as the area and the northern boundary are concerned Scavenger’s Close, which was W. land, would suit. “Muwes Croft” is undoubtedly the close of two acres between the Mews and Colman Hedge Lane. The last close of five acres is described as on the east side of Colman Hedge Lane; this points to a position in St Martin’s Field[30], the lands in which are not distinguished in the Plan of 1585. It will be observed that the total area of the Mercers Lands in 1391 was 94 acres. During the fifteenth century the Mercers Lands were probably sublet. In 1491 a large part of them were held by Sir John Fortescue of Punsborne, who in that year leased to Sir John Browne and other citizens of London a meadow called the Conduit Mead with a partition in the midst of the same, which meadow lieth beside the new house of the Conduit of Tyburn in the county of Middlesex, abutting in breadth towards the north upon the King’s highway leading to Londonward eight roods and a half of assize, every rood containing in length sixteen feet and a half, and upon the west side next thereto is a great brook of water running called Aybroke, and upon the east side next thereto lieth two closes of the same Sir John Fortescue, which John Hardy and John Butteler occupy; also an angle of the said meadow called the Conduit Mead abutteth upon a lane called Suglane upon the east, and in breadth there twenty roods and a yard after the measure aforewritten. Also the Conduit Mead abutteth upon the close of the said Sir John Fortescue that John Hardy aforewritten occupieth and upon the land belonging to Saint James in the Field upon the south side, and in breadth there five score roods and two after the measure aforesaid; and the said Conduit Mead is in length from the north to the south with the partition aforesaid seven score roods and three after the measure aforesaid. All which Conduit Mead, as is now hedged, ditched and closed, one Miles Clifton, cordwainer, late occupied, and now Thomas Duff, innholder, occupieth and holdeth of the same Sir John Fortescue. The lessees were to hold the Conduit Mead together with another close with a well therein adjoining, for a term of 180 years at an annual rent of £4 “saving always to the Mayor and Commonalty such interest as they have in the said lands for the conveyance of water to the City.”[31] The “angle” of Conduit Meadow is clearly the enclosed “Cunditt meadowe” marked on the Plan as abutting east on Sug Lane. The main Conduit Meadow lay along the modern New Bond Street with its north end on Oxford Street, its western boundary being the Aybrook or Tyburn[32]. At its south-west corner it reached to Hay Hill, the rest of the southern boundary being formed by Stonebridge Close and the strip marked in the Plan as “the farmeland of St James.” The close with a well is probably the small close of three acres afterwards referred to[33]. The other two closes of Sir John Fortescue are the two closes of Mercers Lands (marked W.) on either side of the “angle” of Conduit Meadow. At the same time Fortescue granted to the Mayor and Commonalty for a term of 180 years the right to dig and break ground as required in a close called “The Mewes close,” and in all his other lands in Middlesex for the conveyance of water by conduit pipes or otherwise to the City. Similar rights were granted as regards Covent Garden, but only for the term of Fortescue’s interest in it[34]. “The Mewes close” is probably the one called “Muwes Croft” above and not the large Mews Close of the Plan behind the Mews, which was royal property. Sir John Fortescue as we shall see also held Long Acre and other lands under the Mercers[35]. The Mercers Lands appear to have been held in trust for the Company till 1514, when the feoffees obtained licence from the Abbey of Westminster to transfer to the Mercers of London 29 acres of land in Marybone[36] and 20 acres of land and 40 acres of pasture in St Giles and St Martin, which lands were held by right of the monastery. From this it appears that the land had originally been part of the possessions of Westminster Abbey. In 1514 the Mercers undertook to pay 6_s._ rent to the Abbey Chamberlain[37]. At the time of the acquisition of the Mercers Lands by Henry VIII in 1536 they are described as “a meadow called Condyte Meadow and an adjoining close, 27 acres in all, and 56 acres of land”; this makes only 83 acres. But in a Rental of the King’s new purchased lands[38] drawn up a few years later the following are described as purchased from the Mercers of London: Condyd Mede and an adjoining close, 27 acres, held by the Chamber of London, and in the occupation of Thomas Swallow; 42 acres of land in divers parcels held by Thomas Raye; three acres of arable at the Cleypittes held by John Laurence; 11 acres in the Common Field and St Martin’s Field held by William Hosyer; and three acres of pasture in a close nigh to the Mews held by Thomas Wood. Thus we get a total of 86 acres. Hosyer’s holding no doubt included the five acres in St Martin’s Field. The total is still short of the 94 acres of 1391; it is possible that something was omitted in the Rental, but since the areas when given by estimate often vary the discrepancy is not serious. In spite of some uncertainty due to possible inaccuracy of measurements or of bounds or to possible changes of land, there seems no reason to doubt that in the Plan of 1585 we have Abingdon Lands correctly marked by A., Burton Lazar Lands by B., and Mercers Lands by W. (as in the occupation of Thomas Wilson). § 5. ST MARTIN’S FIELD None of the lands with which the Plan of 1585 was directly concerned lay in St Martin’s Field, consequently no division of the land in that Field is shown and some separate account of its early history becomes necessary. St Martin’s Field, which included the whole area north of the Mews as far as King Street (or Shaftesbury Avenue), was bounded east by St Martin’s Lane and west by Colman Hedge Lane (now Whitcomb Street and Wardour Street). Anciently it was a common field, but by the sixteenth century a good deal of it at all events had been parcelled out in enclosures, though still subject to Lammas rights. Here in 1503 were lands called Beamonds Lands, a close called Fostins, and land of John Digby called Cundit Acre[39]. Beamonds Lands were no doubt part of the land granted by Edward III to Sir Henry de Beaumont in 1368[40]. In 1547 the Beaumont Lands were in the King’s possession through the death of Elizabeth, Countess of Oxford, late wife of William, Viscount Beaumont; they are then described as including five acres of arable in St Martin’s Field[41]. Of John Digby’s land we shall hear further under Swan Close. Probably some of the smaller pieces of land acquired by Henry VIII in 1536 were also situate here. The Abingdon Lands, the Burton Lazar Lands, and the Mercers Lands all included plots in this field. The Abingdon land is not specified among the lands acquired by Henry VIII in 1536, and we only hear of it incidentally. About 1540 William Wilkynson held two acres in St Martin’s Field, which had been purchased of the Hospital of St Giles[42]. The Mercers in 1391 held five acres lying as far as the highway on the north, the land of Edmund Stonor east, the land of St Giles’s Hospital south, and Colman Hedge west. This should indicate a site at the north-west corner of the field. In 1540 William Hosyer held 11 acres in the Common Field and in St Martin’s Field, purchased by the King of the Mercers; these 11 acres were included in the grant to Sir Anthony Denny in 1547. In 1574 an inquisition found that five acres of land in St Martin’s Field belonged to the Queen. It was then stated that two acres lay between the land of Burton Lazar on the east, the land of John Stowe on the west, St Martin’s Lane on the south, and Colman Hedge on the north; a half acre was between the land of John Stowe east, Colman Hedge Lane towards the Mews west, land late of the Abbot of Abingdon north, and land late in the tenure of John Laurence[43] south; the remaining two and a half acres were between the lands of John Stowe east, Colman Hedge west, lands late in the tenure of John Laurence north, and lands in the tenure of John Stowe south[44]. The bounds of the first plot are not easy to explain, since Colman Hedge Lane could not properly be described as north nor St Martin’s Lane as south. But the rest of the Queen’s lands clearly lay along Colman Hedge Lane, with the land late of John Laurence in between. The Abingdon land was the same as the land of Edmund Stonor, but again it is not easy to reconcile the bounds given in 1391 and 1574. There is a like difficulty with regard to the Burton Lazar land. The first plot of two acres held by the Queen in 1574 may probably be identified with the land which was sold by the heirs of John Golightly in 1613[45]. The Golightly land is described in 1547 as bounded by lands belonging to a messuage called The Swan then in the tenure of John Stowe east and a lane coming from Colman Hedge Lane on the _east_ (clearly an error for _west_); the southern boundary is given as land heretofore in occupation of John Golightly the father. In the uncertainty created by discordant and probably inaccurate bounds it is impossible to determine the relative positions. But the Golightly land, the position of which alone is of any importance, was probably bounded by Swan Close south, Burton Lazar land east, the lane from Colman Hedge Lane to St Martin’s Lane (King Street or Shaftesbury Avenue) north, and Colman Hedge Lane west. This together with most of the north end of the Field eventually became the Military Garden or Ground[46]. In the remainder of St Martin’s Field we need here only concern ourselves further with the lands which were attached to The Swan Inn[47] and were held by John Stowe. In 1545 John Stowe made a petition to Sir Edward North, then Chancellor of the Court of Augmentations, showing that as tenant of The Swan he held two and a half acres in St Martin’s Field, sometime appertaining to the Monastery of Vale Royal in Cheshire, and two acres called “The Dygbyes Lands.” Thus the original Swan Close would have included not more than four and a half acres. But ultimately the name was extended to include the whole central part of the Field, which became Leicester Square[48]. § 6. THE LANDS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CROWN We have seen how in 1536 Henry VIII acquired the Abingdon, Burton Lazar and Mercers Lands, which comprised the greater part of the land west of St Martin’s Lane. At the same time he also acquired from Westminster Abbey Covent Garden with seven acres of land adjoining[49]. He also purchased other lands from the Churchwardens of St Martin’s, the Brotherhood of Our Lady at St Margaret, Westminster, the Master of Rouncivall Hospital and a variety of private owners. Some of these lands were probably in St Martin’s Field, one was certainly Swallow Close[50] in The Great Common Field, and the rest may include the other pieces of land marked on the Plan as Widow Golightly’s. St James’s Field and other lands in The Great Common Field and Windmill Field had already been acquired from St James’s Hospital. The lands thus acquired came to be known collectively as the Bailiwick of St James, which comprised virtually the whole of the area shown on the Plan of 1585, with the exception of the district north of the way from Uxbridge and the part east of St Martin’s Lane. The reason for these extensive acquisitions by Henry VIII would seem to have been the necessity for having control of the land from which the water-supply for the new Palace at Whitehall was derived. There were certainly two or more conduits on the land, and at a later time the use of the land for this purpose became one strong objection to the building of houses on it by the lessees[51]. So long as control of the land was secured the King had no need of it for any other purpose, and so we find the whole of it leased out very soon after it was acquired. On 16th July 1538 George Sutton and Ralph Martin obtained a lease for 21 years of the Burton Lazar Lands, including 25 acres in St Giles’s Field, five acres in a close by Colman Hedge, five acres of pasture in Colman Hedge Field, the close called Marshland, and another close of five acres called “le Condyd Close.” With the exception of the last (which was near St Giles’s Church) these are the lands marked B. on the Plan. The lease to Sutton and Martin must have been afterwards extended, for on 11th March 1566 John Walgrave obtained a lease in reversion for 21 years from Michaelmas 1574. On 22nd September 1579 Ralph Staverton obtained another lease in reversion for 30 years from 1595[52]. Walgrave’s lease came into the possession of his son-in-law James Bristow, who also acquired the lease in reversion granted to Staverton. The Abingdon Lands were also leased to George Sutton and a like reversionary lease was acquired by John Walgrave. Walgrave died before the grants to him took effect, and his daughter and son-in-law entered into possession in 1574. The Mercers Lands were at first let to a variety of tenants. When the King acquired the land special provision was made for the rights of the City of London in Conduit Meadow, which was an important source for the water-supply drawn from the Conduit established at Tyburn in 1236. The City obtained a lease from the Crown and ultimately acquired the freehold which they still retain[53]. The most important of the other tenants was Thomas Raye[54]. On 20th December 1547 Edward VI granted to Sir Anthony Denny on lease for 21 years: 42 acres, late in the tenure of Thomas Raye; three acres at “les Cleypyttes,” late in the tenure of John Laurence; 11 acres in the Common Field and St Martin’s Field, late in the tenure of William Hosyer; three acres of pasture in a close near the Mews, late in the tenure of Thomas Wode; and a close of an acre and a half, late in the tenure of Henry Romynge[55]. The last was the piece of land which Henry VIII had purchased of the churchwardens of St Martin’s; it seems to have been in The Great Common Field[56]. The rest of the lands granted to Denny are the Mercers Lands other than those leased to the City. Sir Anthony Denny was keeper of the Palace at Whitehall and of other of the King’s lands, and in that office had for his deputy one Roger Lee who seems to have collected his rents in St Martin’s. The actual tenant of the greater part of the land was Randall Kirby, who in 1549 was alleged to have enclosed 52 acres in The Great Common Field which ought to be open[57]. Kirby died in December 1558, after which his widow Mary, who later married a man called Huggyns, held the land. On 2nd January 1560 Queen Elizabeth made a grant in reversion at the expiration of Denny’s lease to William Dodington[58]. Dodington disposed of his interest to John Tamworth, from whom it was acquired by Thomas Wilson, who held the lands in 1585. So far all the grants had been on lease, and though at a later time the freehold of considerable areas was granted away, it is due to the long-continued ownership by the Crown that we are able to trace more easily the subsequent history of the land. § 7. THE LAWSUIT ABOUT GELDING’S CLOSE In 1585 the greater part of the Abingdon and Burton Lazar Lands were held by James Bristow, and the Mercers Lands (other than Conduit Meadow) by Thomas Wilson. But seeing that the lands were divided up into a number of plots or closes, of which the bounds were not always certain, lying intermingled with one another, it is not surprising that some confusion should have arisen. The Mercers Lands included a close in Windmill Field, which was part of the land occupied by Randall Kirby, and was then undivided; Kirby had enclosed it and it was in his time called Kirby’s Close. After Wilson had entered into possession under the grant to Dodington he let this close to Edward Kingston, a brickmaker, who divided the close into two parts and used the part which lay next to Tyburn (meaning no doubt the Tyburn Road) for the keeping of his horses and other necessaries, and converted the rest into a brickfield. From the use of the first part for a horse pasture the whole had before 1575 come to be known as Gelding’s Close[59]. Edward Kingston died in February 1571, and not long afterwards his widow surrendered her lease of Gelding’s Close to Thomas Wilson. Wilson then let the larger and eastern part to George Bright. But the smaller part, though almost entirely surrounded by lands in Wilson’s holding, seems to have been confused with other lands which Kingston had held under the lease granted to Sutton and Martin; this gave colour to a claim that Gelding’s Close was really a part of the Abingdon Lands. It appears that James Bristow had actually taken the profits of the smaller part of Gelding’s Close from the time of his entry on the Abingdon Lands in 1574, and had let it to Richard Cockshott. Six years later Bristow put forward a claim to the other part of Gelding’s Close and exhibited a Bill of Complaint against Wilson in the Court of Exchequer, alleging that it was part of the Abingdon Lands acquired by Henry VIII and claiming to hold it as the Queen’s farmer by the leases granted to Sutton and Walgrave. Ultimately a Commission was appointed on 24th January 1585 with directions to set out the bounds of the lands held by Wilson under the grant to Dodington, to inquire what lands were purchased by Henry VIII from the Abbot of Abingdon, and to have a true plot or plan made of Gelding’s Close. The Commissioners took the depositions of William Downes, William Jasper, Richard Darlowe, Harold Byngham and Andrew Weston, all of them ancient parishioners of St Martin-in-the-Fields. These witnesses in their evidence gave the history of Gelding’s Close substantially as set forth above; they agreed that the Close had been first divided by Edward Kingston; but they were unable to depose as to whether the Close had been included in the Abingdon or the Mercers Lands. The Commissioners apparently felt that the first step was to determine what lands were held under the several acquisitions of the Abingdon, Burton Lazar, and Mercers Lands by Henry VIII. They therefore directed a plan to be made of all the lands showing (1) the Abingdon Lands, marked A., (2) the Burton Lazar Lands, marked B., and (3) Mr Wilson’s lands, marked W. The Plan thus made is the one which has enabled us to trace in detail the early history of this important district of modern London. Under the Abingdon Lands was included the part of Gelding’s Close[60] actually in Bristow’s occupation; the area of the remainder of the Abingdon Lands proper was a little over 33 acres[61]. The area of the Burton Lazar Lands is given as upwards of 52 acres. The area of Wilson’s lands (including the larger part of Gelding’s Close which was then in question) is given as a little over 59 acres; if we add the smaller part of Gelding’s Close we get a total area for the Mercers Lands shown on the Plan of almost exactly 61 acres[62]. Apparently the Commissioners did not feel able to report conclusively, and it will be observed that in the Plan neither part of Gelding’s Close is lettered. The case was heard in Court in Trinity Term 1586, when Bristow’s contention that the part of the Close in his tenure was parcel of the Abingdon Lands was accepted provisionally, and order was made that he should continue to enjoy it till otherwise determined. It was found that the larger part of Gelding’s Close was included in the Mercers Lands; but since there was difficulty in the proof concerning it Wilson was ordered to plead further. On this the Queen’s Attorney-General exhibited an information against Wilson and his servant Bright for intrusion on the larger part of the Close. The consequent trial ended in favour of Wilson, whose title was acknowledged. It is probable that incidentally it was shown that the whole five acres of Gelding’s Close had been included in the grant to Dodington. Wilson having thus fortified his own position proceeded to claim the smaller part from Bristow. In the autumn of 1589 he made a Petition in the Court of Exchequer, setting forth the grant to Dodington and the steps by which the Close had come into his possession, and alleging that it had been one entire close till divided for the first time by Kingston. Bristow in reply alleged that the Close had been included in the grant of the Abingdon Lands to Walgrave and that Wilson’s suit was based on an untrue verdict; he alleged further that Kingston being tenant to Walgrave had lewdly and deceitfully revolted from his right landlord and had accepted a lease of the larger part of the Close from Wilson. These allegations were denied by Wilson, who further denied that the lesser part was parcel of the Abingdon Lands or that the grant to Walgrave included any part of Gelding’s Close. On 12th February 1590 the Court of Exchequer issued a writ to fresh Commissioners to take evidence on a schedule of Interrogatories. The chief points in the Interrogatories were whether Wilson had received rent for the Close from Kingston, whether Kingston had divided the Close and had dug for clay under licence from Wilson, whether Kingston had held other lands, whether the two parts had been originally one entire close, and whether the whole had been accounted the land of Wilson since his purchase from Tamworth. The depositions of three witnesses were taken on 3rd March 1590. Two of them, Jasper and Darlowe, had given evidence on the previous occasion; the third, Anthony Harris, was new. The witnesses had known Gelding’s Close for from 35 to 50 years. They agreed that it had been first divided by Kingston and that previously it had been one whole entire close; also that it had been commonly reported that the whole ought to have been enjoyed by Wilson, who had been greatly wronged by the with-holding of the lesser part. Whilst they all knew that Kingston had held other lands, they were unable to say whether they were parcel of Abingdon Lands. What was the final decision does not appear; but the evidence of the depositions and the successive grants is so clear that there can be little doubt that Wilson triumphantly established his claim to the whole of Gelding’s Close[63]. The dispute between Wilson and Bristow is of no great interest in itself, but is of importance for the elucidation of the Plan and for furnishing the clues to the earlier history of the land. § 8. THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES TO THE SUIT A brief account of the parties to the suit and of the witnesses and other persons named in the Plan and the Documents is necessary for its full understanding. Thomas Wilson, who was one of the parties, was a citizen and brewer of London, and resided at Bethnal Green. In 1569 he acquired the manor of Jankyns or Bocking in Bocking, Braintree and Stisted, Essex[64]. From his will it appears that he had a windmill and lands in St Martin-in-the-Fields[65]. He died in November or December 1590. His executor was his son, Thomas Wilson the younger, who died a few months after his father. Thomas Wilson the younger recited in his will[66], that as executor of his father he had acquired leases of houses and other things in the parish of St Martin-in-the-Fields, and directed them to be applied to the discharge of legacies under his own and his father’s wills. He had previously by deed assigned his leases of houses at Charing Cross to his son John. He had another son Philip, and eight daughters who were all unmarried at his death. James Bristow, the other party to the suit, resided in the town of St Giles, where he had a house “nere unto the west end of the parish church,” with a long garden extending to Hog Lane; the site seems to have been on the line of Little Denmark Street, formerly Lloyd’s Court[67]. He had married a widow called Joan Wise, who was daughter of John Walgrave and was resident as “Joan Wise, widow” at St Giles’s in 1566[68]. Through his wife he became possessed of Walgrave’s lease of Burton Lazar Lands and also acquired the lease in reversion which was granted to Ralph Staverton in 1579. In 1589 he obtained a lease for 20 years of Marshland Close, which had been previously held by George Sutton and John Walgrave. In addition to the lands shown in the Plan he had considerable other property in the parish of St Giles. He held the White Hart in Holborn which had been bought by John Walgrave in 1568. In 1580 he acquired a pightle of land near Holborn, once part of Pursefield, on which the Falcon Inn in the later Gate Street was afterwards built[69]. Another property of James Bristow was The Bear Brewhouse and Bear Croft, which in 1582 he joined with his wife and stepson in selling to James Mascall; the brewhouse was on the south side of Broad Street, St Giles, and Bear Croft was the ground on which Smart’s Buildings and Goldsmith Street were afterwards erected[70]. The pightle, the Bear and Marshland were all part of the Burton Lazar Lands. In his will[71], dated 10th September 1591, James Bristow recited that he had acquired an estate in the grants made to John Walgrave in 1566 and to Ralph Staverton in 1579, and bequeathed his interest thereunder to his loving kinsman Francis Bristow. Various smaller bequests were made to the brothers and sister of Francis Bristow and to others of his own relatives. The residue of his estate was bequeathed for the performance of his will to his stepson John Wise, whom he appointed sole executor. Francis Bristow in 1606 obtained a fresh lease for 40 years of the two closes by Colman Hedge[72], which were part of the lands inherited by him from James Bristow. The witnesses in 1585 and 1590 were all prominent parishioners of St Martin-in-the-Fields. William Downes was churchwarden in 1562-63; he died in September 1589, and was buried in the church where there was anciently a brass in his memory[73]. William Jasper is described as joiner to her majesty; he supplied St Martin’s Church with “a table of wainscot to set the paper of the Commandments in” in 1562, and carved the heads of the pews in 1580; he died in March 1596/97. Richard Darlowe was churchwarden in 1576-77 and died in 1598. Harold Byngham was churchwarden in 1569, and one of the surveyors of common-fields in the parish in 1582; he died in 1586. Andrew Weston was churchwarden in 1571-72; he made two new pews for the church in 1550, sockets for the bell-ropes in 1557, and a “new presse for the armure” in 1571; when he died in January 1588/89 he was buried in the church with the best cloth. Anthony Harris was churchwarden in 1579-81; he was still alive in 1604[74]. As regards the other persons whose names occur in the Interrogatories and Depositions there is nothing to be added about Ralph Martin and George Sutton. Sir Anthony Denny was a favourite courtier of Henry VIII, and one of his executors; he died in 1549[75]. Sir Anthony’s man, Roger Lee, was churchwarden of St Martin’s in 1553-55 and died in 1559. Randall Kirby, the original encloser of Gelding’s Close, was churchwarden in 1548-50, and died on 27th December 1558. I have not discovered the full name of the Huggyns whom Kirby’s widow married. Edward Kingston, the brickmaker, who first divided Gelding’s Close, supplied 3000 bricks for the wall by the Vicar’s tenements in 1569; though none of the deponents could give information as to his other lands, he appears elsewhere as holding lands in the parish of St Giles[76]. Some other names appear on the Plan. Mr Cockshott, who held a close near the Gravel-Pits, was probably Richard Cockshott, who was James Bristow’s tenant for part of Gelding’s Close and landlord of the White Hart at St Giles[77]. Mr Denham and Mr Goulding I have not traced. Mr Huicke was Robert Huicke, or Hewitt, who was physician to Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth; he resided in Church Lane to the east of St Martin’s, where the Dean and Chapter of Westminster granted him leases of a number of tenements in consideration of his having adorned the highway with agreeable buildings to the extirpation of beggary by pulling down ruinous houses on their property[78]; he died in 1581; his name survived in Hewitt’s Court which appears in Strype’s map. “Mr Pulteney the fermour of St James” was Thomas Pulteney or Poultney; in 1592 it was stated that he had kept divers lands including Sandpit Close and Pennyless Bench (or Bank) enclosed after Lammas, though in the time of his predecessors they had lain open; “but now he threatens death to any that shall presume to open the same.”[79] Thomas Pulteney died in 1593. His descendants retained land in the district for 100 years afterwards. The Michael Pulteney of 1620-50 was probably either his son or grandson, and father of the Sir William Pulteney of 1660-90[80]. § 9. THE HEIRS OF GOLIGHTLY AND ROBERT BAKER The most important name for later history which occurs in the Plan is that of Widow Golightly, though it only comes in incidentally. Her husband, John Golightly, was churchwarden of St Martin’s in 1550-52, and died in August 1559.[81] He resided at a house called The Checker (formerly The Rose) near Charing Cross[82]. His widow, Christian Golightly, appears on the Plan as holding three plots of land: (1) on the north side of the Colnbrook road, which was called Swallow Close and contained five acres[83]; (2) a narrow strip in Windmill Field with its north end close to the Windmill[84]; and (3) a close on the south of Scavenger’s Close, this or part thereof is probably the Dippen’s Close which Widow Golightly had enclosed before 1575[85]. John Golightly also held one and a half acres of land in the north part of St Martin’s Field, of which there will be mention in another connexion. Christian Golightly died in May 1596, when her lands descended to her son, John Golightly the younger. John Golightly the younger, in December 1596, made a settlement of his lands in St Martin-in-the-Fields to himself for life, and in default of heirs of his body to his sisters, Agnes Garland and Christian Hutton, for their lives in survivorship, with remainders to his nephew Ralph Garland and then to his own right heirs. John Golightly the younger, who is described as of Wingfield, Hants, gentleman, died in December 1600. His sister Christian, wife of James Hutton, had predeceased him leaving a daughter Susan, who afterwards married John Bridle. Agnes Garland, who thus became possessed for life of the whole of the land, was a widow. Her son Ralph Garland, presumably on the strength of his reversion, in 1602-3[86] granted a lease of all the lands to Sir Robert Lane for a term of 99 years from Michaelmas 1602. Ralph Garland died not long afterwards, and his mother, sister Elizabeth, and brother-in-law Thomas Garland[87] had to defend their rights against Sir Robert Lane, who claimed to have an effective grant. Nor did their troubles end here, for the Mayor and Commonalty of London set up a title to certain tenements near the Mews (presumably part of The Checker), claiming that they belonged to Bethlehem Hospital[88]. The Garlands were successful in both cases; but the litigation had involved them in great expense, and to defray a part of the charges they sold half an acre of land near the Gravel Pitts[89] to one Robert Baker for £50, probably in 1611[90], at which time there were no buildings thereon or on any ground thereabout, but the whole was bare ground. Afterwards Baker erected divers messuages and dwelling-houses, which came to be known by the name of Pickadilly Hall. For the same reason they also sold the land in St Martin’s Field[91]. Agnes or Anne Garland died in August 1618, and Susan Bridle then became coheiress jointly with her cousin Elizabeth Garland. John and Susan Bridle, apparently not understanding the reason for the sale to Baker, in 1624 commenced a suit in Chancery against Thomas and Elizabeth Garland, alleging that the latter having all the deeds in their possession with intent to defraud Susan Bridle had instigated Agnes Garland, in her old age and weakness of memory, to join with them in the suppression of the deeds and in a secret conveyance to themselves of the ground at the Gravel Pitts by the name of one acre and a half of pasture, “which said parcell of ground was of greate price and value in respect the same did lye very fitt and necessary for buildinge and erectinge of houses.” They therefore claimed to be entitled to a share in the proceeds as held in co-parcenery. Thomas and Elizabeth Garland in their reply set out what appear to be the true facts. But when they denied that the land at the Gravel Pitts, the abuttals of which they gave as the King’s highway on the south and land of St James on the north, was more than half an acre, they seem to have been mistaken. They appear further to imply that there had been some confusion with the acre and a half in St Martin’s Field, which had also been sold, as they alleged, with the consent of Susan Bridle. They represented that the sale to Baker had been for Susan’s benefit as necessary to defray the charges incurred in the defence of her own and their own rights[92]. The documents in the suit between the Bridles and Garlands do much to clear up the early history of Piccadilly Hall. To that we shall return later[93], but it has seemed convenient to give this account of the suit here as carrying on the history of an important piece of the land to the approximate date at which the building to the north-west of St Martin’s and the Mews began. Robert Baker’s purchase proved, as will be seen, to be the first step in the process of that development. What little there is to record of the history of the other lands between 1590 and 1615 will be best given incidentally. § 10. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN OF 1585 Now that the early history of the land and the purpose for which the Plan was made have been described it will be easier to understand the Plan itself. This is, moreover, the most convenient place for its description, since the Plan furnishes the key to the development of the land for building. A detailed account of the Plan is thus the natural prelude to the more important history which follows. The Plan, as we know for certain, was drawn in 1585. It is perhaps a little later in date than the plan of Fickets Field and its neighbourhood in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries[94]. These two plans are probably the oldest London plans of such quality that have been preserved. They are both clearly based on careful surveys and so far as can be tested are remarkable for their accuracy of detail. The St Martin’s plan has the name of the draughtsman, R. Tiswell, the Fickets Field plan has no name but seems to be by a different hand. It is matter for regret that when Elizabethan surveyors could produce plans of such excellence we should have no general plan of similar value till nearly a century later, and be dependent on the uncertain guidance for topography of pictorial maps. The area covered by the Plan was stated at the outset. In considering its character it is necessary to bear in mind the purpose for which it was made, viz. to illustrate the relative positions and the dimensions of the Abingdon, Burton Lazar and Mercers Lands. An accurate delineation of the fields and closes was thus necessary, and for the sake of greater clearness the whole of the lands were coloured in various tints. The official description states that the Abingdon Lands were “coloured with light redd,” the Burton Lazar Lands “with sadd redd,” and Mr Wilson’s, or the Mercers Lands, “with yellow.”[95] The colours have now changed or faded and the Abingdon Lands are a grey or purplish blue, the Burton Lazar Lands a pale buff of reddish tint, and the Mercers Lands a pale buff of yellowish tint[96]. Gelding’s Close is also buff, but perhaps of slightly different tint. The other lands shown in the Plan are now of a fairly strong yellow, but what was the original colour cannot be told. The roads are coloured pink. The roofs of the houses and of the Mews are bright red, the walls being uncoloured. Some of the isolated houses and conduits are red all over. The roof of St Giles’s Church is blue (representing lead). On St Martin’s Church there is no visible colour. The three patches of water--the pool in the Windmill Field, the pond near St Giles, and the trough in the court of the Mews--are coloured blue. These reds and blues, perhaps owing to the use of body colour, seem to have retained their original strength. Stow[97], writing in 1598, describes the Mews as “the farthest building west on the north side of the high street.” So we find in our Plan, with the exception of a few isolated buildings, no houses at all other than those in the neighbourhood of the Churches of St Martin and St Giles. It is to the fact that the Plan represents the district as it was shortly before building commenced, that much of its peculiar interest and value is due. The buildings shown do not seem to be merely conventional representations, but in some cases at all events are drawings of what was actually there. Charing Cross is well drawn at the bottom right-hand corner. The gateway of the Mews also seems to be a fairly correct view. The Churches of St Martin and St Giles, so far as the small scale permits, appear to be faithfully depicted, and are of value as showing them in their most ancient state. The houses about St Martin’s may be conventional, but some at all events of those about St Giles’s appear to be drawn from what was actually there[98]. Of the isolated buildings the most interesting is the Windmill, from which the present Windmill Street takes its name; the Plan enables us for the first time to fix its precise position. The Conduit-house appears in Stone Conduit Close. The buildings at the south-east corner of Marshland and in the south part of Scavenger’s Close are also Conduit-houses. “The Gunpowder house” in Scavenger’s Close seems to be otherwise unknown. One of the first features in the Plan to attract attention is the close resemblance between the ancient roadways and the modern streets. The modern Piccadilly appears as “the waye from Colbroke to London.” “The waye to Charing Cross from Colbroke” represents the Haymarket. Colbroke or Colnbrook was perhaps chosen for these descriptions as the last place in Middlesex on the Reading road. “The way to Reading” is a more usual description on early maps. “The Lane on the West side the Mews” and “Colmanhedge Lane,” into which it leads, are on the line of the present Whitcomb Street and Wardour Street. There is of course nothing to represent Pall Mall, though the north side of Trafalgar Square is approximately marked by the wall between The Mews and The Mews Close. St Martin’s Lane still retains its name, though the lower end has together with The Mews been thrown into Trafalgar Square. The irregularity of the north end of St Martin’s Field was reproduced in the original streets, and still survives in some degree in Shaftesbury Avenue and West Street. Marshland is very nearly the area laid out as Seven Dials. Of the two roads to the highway on the north, the more westerly or Hog Lane became Crown Street and is now absorbed in the Charing Cross Road, the other on the north-west side of Marshland became Monmouth Street and now forms the north end of Shaftesbury Avenue. “The waye from Uxbridge to London,” also called “The way from Tyburn,” is of course Oxford Street and dips down to St Giles exactly as High Street does to-day. The streets which correspond to Regent Street appear as a winding lane without any name. The lower end was anciently called Suggen or Shrug Lane and became Tichborne Street and Glasshouse Street. The next piece became Warwick Street; the sharp angle at its north end marks Beak Street. The north part of the Lane in the seventeenth century became Swallow Street, and was widened and straightened to form Regent Street. In other cases as will be shown the modern streets sometimes follow very closely the ancient field boundaries. The fields themselves are accurately drawn, and since their configuration governed the development of the streets, the precise information which the Plan supplies becomes of the greatest value for elucidating the later topography of the district. The gates to the fields are all carefully marked, and may be readily distinguished from the stiles which appear in a few places. At the corner where the lane last described meets the Uxbridge Road there is a stile giving access to a footpath which crosses the meadow diagonally to another stile into The Four Acres; this footpath became King Street. On the east side of St James’s Field there is a stile in the position of Norris Street, and opposite it in Scavenger’s Close another stile and a footpath nearly on the line of Panton Street. This last footpath leads to a stile into St Martin’s Field. At the south-east corner of St Giles’s Field there is a stile, from which there was presumably a footpath to another stile near the gate on the north side of the Field. Though the accuracy of detail in the Plan shows that it was based on a careful survey, the results were not triangulated as they would be in a plan made now. Probably the survey was made by traversing by means of a primitive chain and with the help of a “Theodolitus,” which was an early and imperfect form of the modern theodolite. In a survey made under such conditions a considerable degree of error would easily occur, and this will account for the distortion in the Plan as a whole[99]. As a consequence, in constructing the overlay showing the modern streets, some adjustment had to be made in order to bring it as nearly as possible into conjunction with the Plan. PART II THE BUILDING OF THE STREETS We now come to the main part of our history, which has to do with the process by which the land was developed for building and laid out in streets. Since the expansion of London was from the east to the west, we shall be able to follow it most logically by starting from the north-east corner at St Giles, and taking the fields in several order as they lay. On the whole we shall thus be able to follow the chronological order also, though it will of course be necessary to complete the description of each field or close separately. The lands in the north-east corner were in the parish of St Giles and are consequently described in the volume published by the London Survey Committee. In these cases it will therefore be sufficient to summarize the results there given with the addition of such further illustration as may be afforded by the Plan and its accompanying Documents. § 1. ST GILES’S CHURCH AND TOWN The Hospital of St Giles was a house for lepers founded in 1117 or 1118 by Queen Maud, the wife of Henry I. From an early date this Hospital was associated closely with the City of London. In 1299 it was granted to the Hospital of Burton Lazars in Leicestershire and henceforward became a cell to that house. This explains why the lands of the Hospital which appear in the Plan are described as Burton Lazar Lands. The precinct of the Hospital probably included the whole of the island site now bounded by High and Broad Streets, the Charing Cross Road and Shaftesbury Avenue. This is almost exactly the close in the Plan which contains the town of St Giles, the three roads by which it is bounded corresponding very nearly with the modern streets. The Church of the Hospital was also the parish church of St Giles, though not exclusively parochial till after the suppression of the Hospital in 1539. For the architectural character of the ancient church there is a little documentary evidence. From an order of the Vestry in 1623 it appears that it included a nave and chancel, both with pillars, clerestory walls and aisles on either side. A few years earlier in 1617 there is mention of charges for building the steeple and in 1618 reference to the new steeple[100]. Clearly there had been an attempt at repair since 1585, but the old church was too decayed and was replaced by a new one in 1623. This second church was in its turn pulled down in 1715, when the existing church was built. The small picture of the first church in the Plan is the only good representation of it that we possess[101]. It is not conventional, and agrees sufficiently well with the descriptions just quoted. As for the other buildings of the Hospital, the Spittle Houses or Hospital proper have been conjectured to have stood in the High Street to the east of the church[102]. This is not strictly accurate, for the Spittle Houses are no doubt the block of building which is shown in the Plan to the east of the church, but standing back from the street well within the close. The Gatehouse was described in 1618 as an “old decayed building ... adjoining next unto one small old tenement or building set and being at or near unto or upon the north-west corner of the brick wall enclosing the north and west part of the churchyard.”[103] In the Plan the Gatehouse appears plainly in the correct position. The House of the Master of the Hospital was on the west of the church. After the suppression it came to be known as the Mansion House and before 1566 had passed into the possession of Robert and Edward Downes, who in that year sold the property to John Graunge, from whose heirs it was purchased by Robert Lloyd in 1611. In 1566 there were here eight several messuages, one of which was in the occupation of Joan Wise, widow. This was no doubt the house formerly in the occupation of James Bristow (Joan Wise’s second husband) situated near the west end of the church, which in 1618 was sold by Robert Lloyd to Isaac Bringhurst. The house had a garden extending to Hog Lane, probably along the line of Little Denmark Street, which was formerly called Lloyd’s Court. On the north of this house was the mansion occupied in 1612 by Sir Edward Cope, which subsequently (before 1677) became the residence of Philip, fourth Lord Wharton. This latter house, which had gardens on both the north and south sides, was perhaps originally the Master’s House. North of Lord Wharton’s house was a messuage occupied in 1612 by Tristram Gibbs, which probably stood on part of the site of Denmark Street. North again was the house of Alice, Lady Dudley[104], who lived here till her death in 1669; her house had a paved court and large walled garden on the south side, and on the north side another court with a stable adjoining the street. The stable wall was next to a tenement which adjoined the north part of the Gatehouse. Lady Dudley’s house was probably on a site north of Denmark Street. Still farther north was another tenement called the White House, which Lady Dudley purchased in 1631 and three years later transferred to trustees for use as a parsonage; eventually in 1681 the site was sold for building and became Dudley Court or Denmark Place. The Plan does not seem to be merely conventional, but endeavours to show these five houses; the White House being perhaps the last towards the west on the street. The ground on which these houses stood was laid out for building in the reign of James II. Denmark Street was built about 1687 and was named after Prince George of Denmark, the husband of Queen Anne. Hatton in 1708 calls it “a pretty, though small street.” The rest of the precinct to the south of the buildings was pasture land four acres in extent, which was commonly called Pale Close. This like the houses was acquired in 1566 by John Graunge, whose son sold it in 1611 to Robert Lloyd. A subsequent owner was Sir Richard Stydolph, who in 1671, after a survey by Christopher Wren, obtained a licence to continue building on the back side of St Giles’s Church on the way to Piccadilly[105]. Stydolph’s name survived in a corrupted form in Stidwell Street, which in 1775 was extended to form the present New Compton Street. The Plan shows a few houses on the north side of Broad Street, which call for no special mention. The Close on the extreme north-east corner is described on the Plan as “M^r Goulding’s land.” I have not discovered anything as to Mr Goulding, but the land is the area subsequently covered by Bowl Yard, the west end of Short’s Gardens and Belton Street. Bowl Yard owed its name to the Bowl Inn, to which Stow alludes when he describes how prisoners on their way to execution at Tyburn were presented with a great bowl of ale at St Giles’s Hospital[106]. The Bowl Inn may be the building shown on the Plan at the north-west corner of this plot. Bowl Yard seems to have been formed and most of the land built over before 1680. Short’s Gardens took name from William Short, who acquired land here in 1590, or from his descendants; the original gardens reached to the east end of Marshland. The property south of Short’s Gardens and north of the field called Long Acre was leased in 1623-24 by William Short to Esmé Stuart, Duke of Lennox. On it was built Lennox House, which ultimately came into the possession of Sir John Brownlow, who in 1682 laid out the site for building. Belton Street was called after the seat of the Brownlow family in Lincolnshire. About 1846 it was widened to form Endell Street, which was extended northwards through Bowl Yard to Broad Street[107]. § 2. MARSHLAND CLOSE AND SEVEN DIALS Marshland Close was part of the Burton Lazar Lands which were leased successively in 1538 to George Sutton and Ralph Martin and in 1566 to John Walgrave[108]. In 1589 James Bristow, who was then in possession, obtained a fresh lease for 20 years[109]. However, in 1594 another lease (presumably in reversion) was granted to Thomas Stydolph, his wife and his son Francis, for their lives in survivorship. Four years later yet another lease in reversion was granted to Nicholas Morgan and Thomas Horne, whose interest was afterwards acquired by Sir Francis Stydolph[110]. Stydolph was thus lessee for life and for 60 years after his death. In a Parliamentary Survey made in 1650 Marsh Close _alias_ Marshland is described as lying between a way leading from Drury Lane to St Martin’s Lane (Castle Street), and ways from St Giles to Knightsbridge (Shaftesbury Avenue) and from Hog Lane to St Martin’s Lane (West Street), on three sides; on the east were the lands belonging to The Bowl, Mr Short and Sir John Brownlow[111]. In 1585 the bounds had been given as Long Acre on the south-east, the highway from St Martin to St Giles on the west and north, and Mr Goulding’s land on the east. The Close is thus represented approximately by the area comprised within West Street, Shaftesbury Avenue, Neal Street and Castle Street. There was, however, an extension at the south-east corner, which is clearly shown on the Plan, though as stated in the _Survey of St Giles_ it has been commonly overlooked[112]. In 1650 there were only a few buildings in Marshland Close. One was a conduit which stood “on the south-east corner of the aforesaid Marsh Close, consisting of one room heretofore used to convey water to the Exchequer Office, but of late not used.” This is no doubt the small building shown on the Plan. Adjoining to it in 1650 there were three small tenements[113]. Hollar a few years later shows a considerable block of building at this point. In 1650 according to the Parliamentary Survey there was an inn called The Cock and Pye adjoining Marsh Close. This has been supposed to be represented by the buildings in Hollar’s map. But the inn is described as “adjoining to Marsh Close” and no buildings whatever are shown within the Close at this point either in Faithorne’s or Morden and Lea’s maps. In 1650 there was an inn called The Cock at the north-west corner of Long Acre Field[114], immediately opposite to the buildings shown by Hollar. It seems not improbable that this was really The Cock and Pye Inn, from which Marsh Close was afterwards often called Cock and Pye Fields. Sir Francis Stydolph died in March 1656, and the reversion granted to Morgan and Horne then became operative. But his son Sir Richard in 1672 obtained an extension for 15 years[115], thus securing his possession of the Close till 1731. Some building seems to have taken place before 1682 as shown by Morden and Lea’s map. But it was not till 1693 that Thomas Neale obtained a lease, “intending to improve the premises by building” and undertaking to erect houses within two years. On 5th October 1694 Evelyn writes: “I went to see the building near St Giles’s, where seven streets make a star from a Doric pillar placed in the middle of a circular area.” It was to this arrangement that the district owed its name of Seven Dials. The pillar was removed in 1773, and many years after was erected on the green at Weybridge where it now stands. The streets as planned by Neale were St Andrew’s Street, Earle Street, White Lion Street, and Queen Street radiating from the centre. The street on the east boundary was then called King Street, a name which has now been changed to Neal Street. The road on the north side was called Monmouth Street, probably after Robert Carey, Earl of Monmouth; it is now absorbed in Shaftesbury Avenue. The first part of the area to be completed was the triangle between St Andrew’s Street, King Street and Queen Street, where the leases of the houses date from 1693. The rest was not completed till well into the eighteenth century. The leases on the south-west of the Close were apparently not granted till 1708-9. Strype writes in 1720 of “Cock and Pye Fields, which was made use of for a laystall for the soil of the streets, but of late built into seven handsome streets with a dial placed in the midst.” The laystall in Cock and Pye Fields is referred to in 1690[116]. § 3. LONG ACRE Long Acre lay immediately south of Marshland, and included the whole of the area between St Martin’s Lane and Drury Lane, now bounded on the north by Castle Street and on the south by the street called Long Acre. Henry Machyn in 1556 refers to a murder “in the Long Acurs, the bak-syde of Charing Cross.”[117] An earlier name for Long Acre was Elm Close or Elm Field. It was probably part of the lands held by John Bosham in 1391 for the Mercers Company, to whom it certainly belonged at a later date. The association of Elm Field with Bosham seems to be indicated by a reference to it in 1452[118], when it was held by Sir John Fortescue (the elder, of Punsborne), whilst a lane which seems to be identical with the later Drury Lane is described as “leading from St Giles to Bosomysynne now of John Fortescue, Knight.”[119] Fortescue may probably have held both Elm Field and his Inn by lease from the Mercers; forty years later the land of the Mercers in Marybone[120] was held by another John Fortescue. However, Long Acre was not part of the lands which Henry VIII acquired from the Mercers. Nevertheless a century later a question was raised as to whether it had not been included in the sale. In 1650 one Captain William Disher laid an information before the Parliamentary Commissioners offering to prove that the Close had been sold by the Mercers to Henry VIII and was consequently the property of the State; this was apparently based on the mistaken idea that the Close of three acres mentioned in the Act of 1536 was part of Long Acre. Against this claim Henry Carey, Earl of Monmouth, appealed in conjunction with the Mercers Company, from whom he held a lease of Long Acre. After full hearing the Commissioners resolved that possession of Elm Field had always been with the Mercers and persons claiming under them[121]. Building in Long Acre had begun long before 1650. In 1616 Sir William Slingsby was in trouble for altering the direction of a way in Long Acre to the King’s displeasure, and in 1618 a shed which had been erected there without licence was ordered to be pulled down[122]. A number of houses in Long Acre appear in the Ratebook for 1627. In 1631 a large building of brick was being erected by one Scipio Squire, contrary to the proclamation, on the north side of Long Acre over against Covent Garden[123]. There are other references to base buildings there in subsequent years[124]. Some houses, however, were of good quality, and in March 1642-43 Francis de Lissola, councillor to the Emperor, was resident at Lord Dungarvan’s house in Long Acre[125]. Oliver Cromwell lived in a house on the south side of Long Acre (the street) in 1637-43. By 1650 pretty nearly the whole of Long Acre Field was built over, and the name was applied specially to the street on its south side. But the Plan includes only the western part, reaching not quite so far as Neal Street (the lower end of which was originally called Cross Lane). The south side of Castle Street to the west of Cross Lane was still apparently unbuilt; no houses are shown here in Faithorne’s map and only a few in Hollar’s. Mercers Street was, however, laid out with houses on both sides. In Long Acre (the street) the Survey of 1650 gives a number of houses both on the west and the east side of the south end of Mercers Street. On the east side, a little short of Cross Lane, was a timber yard with stables and fifteen coach-houses. From Hollar’s view it would seem that this part of Long Acre had not been completely built in 1658 (though so shown by Faithorne). In 1662 Robert Streeter sought licence to erect a building on a void place in Long Acre, which he claimed would be an ornament to the neighbourhood[126]. At the west end of Long Acre Field towards St Martin’s Lane there appear to have been 25 tenements in 1650; the one at the north-west corner was a tavern called The Cock[127]. Most of the tenements here and in Mercers Street and Long Acre (the street) seem to have been small houses and shops. § 4. COVENT GARDEN On the south of Long Acre was the large piece of ground called Covent (or Convent) Garden, which extended on the south to the present Chandos Street. It owed its name to the fact that it had anciently belonged to Westminster Abbey. In 1491 it was leased to Sir John Fortescue[128]. In 1536 Henry VIII acquired from the abbey their garden near Charing Cross called Covent Garden together with seven acres lying without the garden and adjoining thereto. At that time Henry Dingley held, under a lease granted to Sir Richard Weston by the abbot, the garden called Covent Garden and seven acres of land lying without the enclosure on the north side of the said garden. Dingley on 20th December 1535 had demised his lease to one Richard Browne. The whole of this land was no doubt within the area marked on the Plan as Covent Garden, the garden proper being on the south side. After Henry VIII had obtained possession Sir Richard Riche, as Chancellor of the Court of Augmentations, required Browne to leave, which he did. But Dingley refused to accept the compensation which was offered to him and began proceedings in Chancery against Browne[129]. The rent paid at this time to the Crown was £5. 6_s._ 8_d._[130] In 1547 Covent Garden was occupied for the King’s use for the pasturage of certain great sheep[131]. Afterwards it was granted to the Protector Somerset and finally in 1552 to John Russell, first Earl of Bedford, whose descendants retained the estate till a few years ago. As in the case of Long Acre the Plan shows only the west part of Covent Garden, extending a little to the east of Bedfordbury. Thus it does not include any part of the Piazza which was laid out for the fourth Earl of Bedford by Inigo Jones in 1631. However, the western part was developed very soon after, and there is reference in 1638 to the small street called Bedfordbury; the area between that street and St Martin’s Lane appears to have already been built over[132]. Chandos Street on the south is mentioned in 1637[133]. [Illustration: ST GILES-IN-THE-FIELDS From Hollar’s _View of West Central London_, _c._ 1658] § 5. ST MARTIN’S CHURCH AND TOWN St Martin’s Lane ended originally opposite Rouncivall Hospital, the site of which was at the northern end of Northumberland Avenue. The south end of the Lane was swept away when Trafalgar Square was formed. It was alleged in 1606 that when Henry VIII constituted the new parish of St Martin’s in 1542 he caused the church to be erected[134]. That was not correct, for the church was much older. There is reference to the injury done by persons digging for treasure at the church of St Martin by Charing in 1300[135]. St Martin by Charing seems to have been the commonest designation in early times; but we get St Martin “in campis” in 1393, and St Martin “in the fylde besid Charing Cross” a century later. In early wills we have mention of the west and north doors and of the chapel and brotherhood of St John. Probably, however, this ancient church was very small and there was an extensive rebuilding in 1543-44[136]. To the church as thus rebuilt we have a few references in its last days in the Churchwardens Accounts. In 1602 there is mention of the clock and the belfry door. We find that there were five bells which were recast in 1604. In that same year 11_s._ 8_d._ was spent for the “enlargement and making of new pewes for the Lords, Knights, Ladies and gentlemen of the better sort.” The Plan of 1585 shows the church as a very small building, with a large western tower and clock. It is the best representation of the sixteenth century church which we possess, though on a comparison of the Plan with the drawing in the Agas map, the latter proves to be of better quality than those of most other buildings in that map. Hatton in 1708 writes[137]: This church was very small till the year 1607, when that part which is now the chancel was taken out of the churchyard and builded on, being an enlargement of about one third of what the church and chancel now contains, as may easily be seen by the roof. And the old church was about that time repaired and beautified, the west door case having the date 1608.... The enlargement was done partly at the charge of King James the First and Prince Henry, the rest at the cost of the parish. Hatton’s statement is confirmed by the Churchwardens Accounts for 1607-9, which show that large sums were collected during those years for rebuilding the church. Amongst the principal contributors were the Earls of Salisbury and Northampton, who each gave £20. There is no mention of any royal gift other than the grant of land for a new churchyard. Whilst the church was rebuilding the parishioners attended the chapel at Durham House. In 1606 the parishioners presented a petition to the King showing that the parish “is so greatly inhabited that the church is not of sufficient bigness to receive the parishioners and the churchyard is so little as there is no room to bury the dead.” On this King James on 28th October 1606 granted them an acre of ground on the backside of the Mews, abutting on St Martin’s Lane east, Swan Close north, the way leading from the Mews to St Martin’s Field west[138], and a new brick wall lately erected by the Duke of Lennox south[139]. The churchyard was consecrated on 8th June 1608. The parishioners, however, proceeded to build houses on a large part of the ground, in consequence of which an inquiry was held in 1631. Ultimately on 27th May 1633 a fresh grant was made, but with a provision that no more houses were to be built, and the remaining part which was on the north side was to be used exclusively for a churchyard; this part was then 224 feet long from east to west, and 30 feet broad from north to south.[140] This not unnaturally proved too small, and in 1668 the parish obtained from Charles II a further piece of land, presumably on the north[141]. The enlarged churchyard, as shown in Rocque’s map of 1746, is over 200 feet long and 100 feet broad. The National Portrait Gallery now stands on part of the site. Some houses which had been built on the burial ground on the south side of Hemmings Row were pulled down in 1702 when the Row was widened. Of the church as enlarged in 1607-8 there are prints engraved by George Vertue shortly before it was pulled down. The present church was built in 1722-26 from the design of James Gibbs and is the most famous of his buildings. The Plan of 1585 shows a small cluster of houses on the south of the church, but they can have extended only a little way along the north side of the Strand. Over against the south end of the Lane was the Hospital of St Mary Rouncivall, on the site of which in 1605 was built Northampton House, afterwards Suffolk House and Northumberland House. Next on the south came the Hermitage of St Katherine. Both these buildings must be included in the Plan. Charing Cross just appears, nearly on the spot where the statue of King Charles the First now stands. The most important of the houses on the east side of the Lane was The Swan Inn. A rent of 5_s._ from this house had been acquired in 1413-14 for the benefit of the altar of St Thomas the Martyr in Westminster Abbey. In 1432-33 it is for the first time referred to by name as “Le Key now called le Swanne.”[142] The Swan was a well-known tavern in 1467, when John Howard, afterwards Duke of Norfolk, paid 2_s._ 2_d._ for his costs at The Swan at Westminster[143]. In 1540 The Swan was held by John Stowe, who was churchwarden of St Martin’s three years later. Stowe was tenant of John Digby, who demised to him a cottage by the gate of The Swan Inn, and a cottage next thereto late of Christopher Grove, barber-surgeon[144]. Similarly in 1564, John Bassebourne, who was then tenant of The Swan, also held two houses on the east part of the inn by lease from Everard Digby[145]. Aubrey has a tale of how Ben Jonson completed an impromptu epigram made for James I with the line, And God blesse me and God blesse Raph. The King being mighty inquisitive asked who Raph might be. “Ben told him ’twas the drawer at the Swanne taverne by Charing Cross who drew him good canarie.”[146] There is an extant token issued in 1665 at The Swan against the Mews. Hatton in 1708 describes The Swan Inn as situated on the north-west side of the Strand, near St Martin’s Lane end; this would be a little to the east of the present north-west corner of the Strand in Trafalgar Square. The Swan is of special interest because there went with it lands in St Martin’s Field of which there will be more to be said later[147]. Another house of less interest on the east side of the Lane was The Christopher, which before 1514 together with six small tenements and gardens had belonged to Humphrey Cooke, carpenter, and keeper of Durham Place. In 1586 The Christopher together with five tenements in Charing Cross Street (the west end of the Strand) between it and the house of Mistress Cooke was bequeathed by John Russell to Michael Apsley[148]. Nine tenements in Charing Cross Street were leased in 1502 by the cellarer of Westminster Abbey to John Smyth; they abutted north on the mud wall of the churchyard of St Martin’s, and had a tenement belonging to Joan Morland on the west. The tenement of Joan Morland had before 1500 been let to John Hassok; it had the garden of the Lady Chapel at Westminster on the west and a garden belonging to John Norys on the south. It also adjoined a garden belonging to The Swan[149]. These latter tenements were on the east side of St Martin’s Lane between the corner and the church, or the east side of Trafalgar Square. At the west corner of St Martin’s Lane was a brewhouse or inn, which in 1493 was let by the Abbot of Westminster to John Norres, yeoman, of Ebury; it was opposite to Rouncivall Hospital and abutted north on the wall of the garden of the Mews; St Martin’s Lane and the King’s highway lay to the east and south; and on the west was a tenement belonging to the Hospital of St Mary of Bethlehem. According to Stow the Bethlehem Hospital had been first founded here, and retained this tenement as part of its property[150]. In 1622 Oliffe Bush held four tenements near Charing Cross on lease from the governors of Bethlehem Hospital. The brewhouse held by John Norres was no doubt the same as The Rose, which the Abbot of Westminster leased in 1513 and again in 1520 to Christian Norys or Norres, widow[151]. Christian Norys held it in 1536, but before her death in 1543 assigned her interest to John Hoochin, who again assigned it to John Golightly the elder. Henry VIII on 28th July 1545 granted the reversion to Thomas and John Bacon[152], from whom it was acquired by George Carleton. In 1561 his nephew, another George Carleton, brought an action against Christian Golightly who was then in possession of The Rose, or The Chequer as it was now called, and alleged that the house had by her default gone into great ruin[153]. Christian Golightly was mother of Agnes Garland, against whom the Mayor and Commonalty of London brought an action about 1610, in which they laid claim to certain gardens, grounds and tenements in her occupation alleging that they belonged to Bethlehem Hospital[154]. This makes it probable that The Chequer or Rose was the brewhouse on the east side of the tenement of Bethlehem Hospital. Chequer Yard is described by Hatton in his _New View of London_ as on the west side of St Martin’s Lane near the Strand. It is clearly marked in Rocque’s map of 1746. The site is now nearly at the south-east corner of Trafalgar Square. § 6. ST MARTIN’S LANE The Lane is referred to in the Ratebook for 1613 as West Church Lane, but, as the Plan of 1585 shows, the name St Martin’s Lane was much older. In the Plan there are only a few houses in St Martin’s Lane. But the increase in population which led to the enlargement of the church in 1608 was only the beginning of the expansion which continued for many years after. The east side of the Lane up to Long Acre was completed as part of the development of the Earl of Bedford’s estate at Covent Garden between 1634 and 1638. On the west side much of the lower end was occupied by the buildings of the Mews. But nearly opposite to the church was the Round House or parish watch-house. Beyond this came the new churchyard. Farther north the whole west side was comprised in the five acres of ground, being part of Swan Close (or Leicester Fields), which James I in 1608 granted to Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury. It was probably in connexion therewith that in the same year a grant of £100 was made towards making a sewer for draining from St Martin’s Lane as far as St Giles, so that the King’s passage through those fields might be sweeter and more commodious[155]. The question of drainage in this locality was to prove troublesome for years to come, and the construction of this sewer was one of the first steps towards its improvement. The Earl of Salisbury began at once to develop his land, and in 1610 paid 50_s._ Lammas money for “those five acres of ground whereupon the new buildings were erected on the west side of St Martin’s Lane.” This payment continued to be made regularly by the Earl and his successors till 1895 when it was commuted; in 1623 it is described as for land, “whereon certain fair buildings are erected,” and in 1625 as for “many fair houses and gardens.”[156] Howell in his _Londinopolis_ in 1657 speaks of “many gentile fair houses built in a row by the Earl of Salisbury.”[157] In 1638 complaint was made that the sewage from St Giles had been interfered with by the houses built on the west side of the Lane by the Earl of Salisbury. The Earl protested that the sewer made by the late Earl was sufficient for his houses and that the nuisance was due to later buildings by others. The Commissioners reported that the nuisance was of longer standing, but order was given for further inquiry[158]. The Earl of Salisbury’s land is commemorated in Cranbourn Street and Cecil Court. Cranbourn Street was originally called Cranborne Alley and was not built till 1678[159]. It was at first only a paved passage, and was not widened till 1843, when it joined up Coventry Street and Long Acre. Strype calls it “a place of very good trade, inhabited by shopkeepers on both sides.” The Earl of Salisbury’s property does not seem to have extended farther north than Newport Street opposite Long Acre (the street). The west side of the Long Acre Field was built over before 1650[160]. On the other side of this section of the Lane both Faithorne and Hollar show some houses; though the latter, who is perhaps the more trustworthy, represents the buildings as not reaching quite so far as the Cock and Pye corner, where the later St Andrew’s Street began. By the beginning of the reign of Charles I St Martin’s Lane had become a place of fashionable residence to meet the demand for houses by persons connected with the Court. In 1623 Sir George Calvert writes from St Martin’s Lane, as does the Earl of Sunderland in 1628. Viscount Conway had a house here in 1629, and Sir Thomas Roe lived here in 1631. The house of the Officers of the Navy was also established here before 1629[161]. The authorities did not, however, look with favour on this extension. On 27th February 1633-34 Mr Moor, one of the clerks of the Signet, was fined £1000 for his buildings near St Martin’s Church, being 42 stables, dwellings and coach-houses; he was ordered to pull them down by Easter on pain of a further fine of £1000 in the event of non-compliance; George Garrard, our informant, adds that the rate adopted was three years fine on the rents presented. In May 1634 Moor had done nothing and a writ was out to fine him £2000. A month later the sheriffs of London were busy demolishing Moor’s houses, stables, etc.[162] Moor did not stand alone. In January 1634 Sir John Hippisley was allowed to compound for the houses which he had built in St Martin’s. In order to stop further building it was then proposed that in future no compounding should be allowed; but in 1637 we again hear of compounders for new buildings in St Martin’s Lane[163]. The official opposition to expansion was of course futile, though it may have operated advantageously as a check on ill-considered building schemes. Ultimately St Martin’s Lane lost much of its residential character. Strype in 1720 describes it as a very great thoroughfare both for foot and horse, and well inhabited, having good built houses, especially on the west, where the wall before the houses was lately pulled down and the courts laid open, with a fine freestone pavement which was secured from carts and coaches by handsome posts, which hath much added to the beauty of the street and the conveniency of the inhabitants. [Illustration: CHARING CROSS TO PICCADILLY From Faithorne’s Map, 1658] § 7. THE MEWS AND ITS PRECINCTS The Mews and the Mews Close occupied an extensive area on the south side of St Martin’s Field. The mews for the King’s falcons were probably established here in the thirteenth century, for in 1306 we hear of the chapel of the Mews at Westminster[164]. The first definite mention would, however, seem to be the appointment in 1310 of John Colne to be keeper of the King’s mews and falcons[165]. John de Braban was keeper in 1358, and similar references appear at intervals subsequently. The Mews are sometimes described as at Westminster, sometimes as at Charing Cross. But save for a mention of repairs at “les Mewes” in 1436 there is nothing of interest in their early history. The Mews seem to have been rebuilt in 1518 when a payment of £200 was made to Walter Forster for that purpose[166]. Anciently the King’s stables had been at Bloomsbury; but in 1534 they were burnt down with the loss of many horses and great store of hay. After this the Mews at Charing Cross were rebuilt for stabling in the reigns of Edward VI and Mary[167]. The old name was, however, retained and thus mews, which properly meant a place where falcons were kept, acquired its later signification of stables for horses. The Mews were an extensive range of buildings, and in the seventeenth century unauthorised persons managed to obtain dwelling-places within them. Garrard writes in 1637: “The Court is now filled with the families of every mean courtier. Dwelling-houses are daily erected in every corner of the Mews fit only for stables.”[168] This explains how in later years we get references to residents in the Mews[169]. Under the Commonwealth the Mews were used for quartering soldiers, and in 1645 over 4000 royalists who had been taken prisoners at Naseby were lodged there. The royal stables at the Mews, which had been rebuilt by William Kent in 1732, were finally pulled down in 1830. The site of the buildings and yard then formed the greater part of Trafalgar Square. The Mews Close on the north side at the same time became the site of the National Gallery, the front of which coincides nearly with the wall on the south of the Close. The gateway of the Mews as shown on the Plan does not seem to be a merely conventional representation. The buildings of the Mews did not occupy the whole front towards the highway. At the south-east corner, as we have seen, were The Chequer and other houses. At the south-west was a void space on part of which Sir Edward Sydenham built a house under licence from Charles I. In 1671 Sydenham obtained an extension of his lease for his life and 31 years afterwards[170]. On the north of this house there were stables known as Dunghill Mews[171] which were also called Back Mews. Above Dunghill Mews in the reign of Charles II was a piece of waste ground, which in 1673 was granted to the Duke of Monmouth to build stables on. Monmouth also built himself a house here, in which he resided occasionally before the erection of his mansion in Soho[172]. This was no doubt the house in Hedge Lane to which he went when he quitted Whitehall in December 1679[173]. The site of the Duke’s house and stables extended to Orange Street; but part was afterwards occupied by Monmouth Court, which Strype describes as “a very handsome open place, with new-built houses and a handsome freestone pavement.” The site of the Mews Close on the north of The Mews proper was covered during the seventeenth century by various subsidiary stables. In the centre were the Green Mews, which were the most extensive and gave name to Green Street. On the north and west of the Green Mews were the Blue Mews, with a piece of waste ground adjoining them on which abutted the south and east ranges of the houses in Leicester Fields[174]. The Blue Mews are described in 1651 as bounded by a highway leading from Charing Cross south-west, the land belonging to the Lord Howard east, and the Green Mews south; they then belonged to the Earl of Leicester[175]. Between the Green Mews and St Martin’s Lane was the piece of ground which was granted in 1633 and 1668 for a churchyard. In Strype’s time the east side of Hedge Lane above Monmouth Court was occupied by stabling and coach-houses belonging to the houses in Leicester Square. Monmouth Court and the buildings north of it were on the plot of Mercers Land, which in 1391 was described as “Muwes Croft” abutting on the wall of The Mews south and in part east, and on the highway west. As the Mews Close it was held by Sir John Fortescue in 1491[176]. After its acquisition by Henry VIII it was leased to Thomas Wode. With the rest of the Mercers Lands it was granted to Sir Anthony Denny in 1547, and in 1585 was in the possession of Thomas Wilson. The present St Martin’s Street runs nearly down the centre of the north part of the Croft. Mews Croft was probably the Close which Robert Baker by his will in 1623 bequeathed to his son Samuel as a close or piece of ground “now divided into several parcels and in part built upon, containing in the whole about two acres more or less, situate behind the Mews, which I have lately enclosed with a brick wall.” We know from another source that Robert Baker had land in this neighbourhood adjoining the piece of waste ground by the Blue Mews, which in 1650 belonged to Lord Howard of Escrick[177]. Samuel Baker, who was under age at his father’s death, appears to have died not many years later, when the land would have passed to his brother Robert. The other children of Robert Baker the elder were two daughters, Judith and Mary. Of Judith we know no more. Mary married Henry, eldest son of Sir James Oxenden of Deane in Kent, and died in childbirth. She was buried on 5th December 1638 at St Martin-in-the-Fields, where her only child Mary Oxenden had been baptized on 25th November 1638[178]. Robert Baker the younger died under age in the autumn of 1641, and on 1st November letters of administration of his estate were granted to Sir James Oxenden as grandfather of his niece Mary[179]. Mary Oxenden seems to have died young, when her estate passed to her father. So when Leicester Fields were being laid out in 1670, the south range of building was described as abutting on the gardens and backsides of the houses of Sir Henry Oxenden[180]. These houses must therefore have been to the south-west of Leicester Fields, and it appears probable that they were on the north end of Mews Croft and occupied part of the Close owned by Robert Baker. [Illustration: ST MARTIN AND ST GILES From the Agas Map, _c._ 1570] § 8. LEICESTER SQUARE AND CASTLE STREET We have seen how a part of St Martin’s Field was attached to The Swan Inn and how in consequence the central part of the Field came to be called Swan Close[181]. A part on the west side of St Martin’s Lane had been granted away to the Earl of Salisbury in 1608[182], but the greater portion, being Lammas land, was available for pasture when the crops were away and was also used by the inhabitants for drying their clothes. Thus it remained till 1630 when Robert Sidney, second Earl of Leicester, was seeking to obtain a grant from the Crown, with a view to building a house there as his London residence. Commissioners[183] were thereon appointed to view the land, who reported that in order to accommodate the Earl and to benefit the inhabitants of the parish they had set down a fit limit for the new wall from north to south on both sides of the Close, and how the wall should come from the corner point of the Artillery Gate[184] down to the crossway on the south side. They had also appointed where the crossway through the Close should be, and along that way had directed that a rail should be set from east to west at the Earl’s expense. The other part of the Field, being equal in quantity and better in ground than the first part, was to be turned into walks and planted with trees along the walks, with fit spaces left for the inhabitants to dry their clothes there as they had been wont to do. There was to be free use of the whole place, but it was not to be depastured, and all the footways through the Close were to be kept as they had been. All the work was to be done at the charge of the Earl, who in consideration that it was Lammas land was to pay £3 yearly to the parish. At the same time the parishioners petitioned that no more of the fields about this place that were subject to Lammas rights should be suffered to have new buildings erected upon them[185]. Under this arrangement the Earl of Leicester appears in subsequent years as paying £3 “for the Lammas of the ground that adjoins the Military Wall,” and “for Lammas of the ground whereon his Lordship’s house and garden are and for the field before his house near Swan Close.” The latter entry might seem to imply that the land acquired by the Earl of Leicester was not part of Swan Close, which as we have seen was originally a comparatively small area. However, when on 14th August 1631 the Earl obtained formal licence to build, it was under the description of “a house convenient for his habitation on Swan Close”[186]; and, as we shall see, other parts of the property granted in 1630 are later on described as in Swan Close. It will be observed that in the report of the Commissioners made in 1630 there is reference to existing footways. The Plan of 1585 shows an entry into St Martin’s Field opposite to the path across Scavenger’s Close. This appears still more clearly in the contemporary Agas map which gives a footway crossing the Field to St Martin’s Lane. This footway would be on line with the south side of Leicester Square, and is no doubt the Crossway for which the Commissioners made provision. Another interesting feature in the Agas map is the representation of a woman spreading out clothes to dry. The north part of the Field was then used for the pasturage of cattle. The ground laid out in 1631 for walks was afterwards called Leicester Fields and ultimately became Leicester Square. Leicester House was built on the north side, but the land on the other three sides also belonged to the Earl. On the east side there was provided a common or public bowling-green, which was the Earl’s property. Leicester House itself, which was erected shortly after 1631, was a large building with extensive gardens. The Earl of Leicester was ambassador in France from 1636 to 1641 and during the Civil War and Commonwealth period was seldom in London, residing usually at Penshurst, as he continued to do for the most part till his death in 1677. But on 11th January 1642 he entertained the Earl of Essex at a great supper here, when there was a plot (attributed to French papists) to poison him and his guests. The Countess wrote to her husband from Leicester House in March-May 1637, and Algernon Sidney his son was living there in 1649 and 1658[187]. In the reign of Queen Anne Leicester House was let to the Emperor’s ambassador. Afterwards it was the residence of George II as Prince of Wales from 1718 to 1727, and later on of his son Frederick, who died there in 1751. The house was pulled down in 1791, and the chief part of the site is now occupied by the Empire Theatre. Apart from Leicester House there was little building on Swan Close till after the Restoration. Faithorne’s map in 1658 shows no houses between Leicester House and the Mews. But between 1663 and 1665 the Earl of Leicester granted numerous leases of land for building houses in Swan Close, chiefly on the east side of the Fields. For this unlicenced building he received pardon on 10th April 1670, when he also obtained licence to erect three ranges of further building. The first range was to be from the Garden Gate of Leicester House opening into Leicester Fields[188], and extended for 335 feet south to the stable of Sir Philip Howard; this range had a depth from east to west of 100 feet and abutted west on Colman Hedge Lane, whilst on the east it fronted Leicester Fields. The second range, on the south side of the Fields, was to extend 330 feet from east to west with a depth of 60 feet from north to south; it abutted west on Colman Hedge Lane, south on the gardens and backsides of Sir Henry Oxenden’s property, and east on a piece of waste ground before the stable called the Blue Mews. The third range was to be built on the Bowling-Green, being part of Swan Close, and facing Leicester Fields on the west; its length from north to south was to be 520 feet and its depth 300 feet, it abutted south on the waste ground before the Blue Mews, north on the houses and grounds in the possession of Richard Rider and east on the garden grounds of the houses in St Martin’s Lane[189]. Thus the whole of Leicester Square was laid out, with Leicester House on the north and the three ranges of houses on the other three sides. Though at first called Leicester Fields the other name soon became more usual. It is Leicester Square in the Act for St Anne’s Soho in 1678, and Hatton thirty years later has “Leicester Square by some called Leicester Fields.” However, “Leicester Fields” still occurs occasionally in the eighteenth century. From the first Leicester Square was a place of fashionable residence. Amongst the lessees in 1663 were Sir William Salkeld and Sir John Hobart, both on the east side. Early residents after the completion of the Square were Nathaniel Crewe, bishop of Durham, and the Earl of Orrery in 1675, and the Earl of Pembroke in 1680[190]. Strype, still calling it Leicester Fields, describes it as “a very handsome large square, enclosed with rails and graced on all sides with good built houses, well inhabited and resorted to by gentry.” About the same time as the completion of the Square the ground on the west side of Leicester House was also laid out for building, only a comparatively small space being left for the gardens. In this quarter were Lisle Street, which Hatton in 1708 describes as “tho’ short, a street of fine spacious buildings,” and Leicester Street, “a street of good buildings.” Lisle Street, named after the Earl’s second title, was originally a _cul-de-sac_; but when Leicester House was pulled down was extended eastwards. The entry to the Square at the north-west was by Sidney Alley, now Sidney Place, a little north of Coventry Street. The depth given for the eastern range in 1670 was much greater than that for either of the other two sides. Being far more than was required it was used for a further building scheme and Castle Street was laid out between Leicester Square and St Martin’s Lane. The date of its building was little later than that of the Square; for Castle Street appears in the Ratebooks in 1676, and in 1678 there is mention of the French ordinary in Castle Street behind Leicester Fields[191]. The district was favoured by French refugees; Strype describes Dukes Court as “inhabited by several French families.” Archbishop Tenison’s library in Castle Street was built in 1683 whilst he was rector of St Martin’s. Castle Street extended from the Mews to Newport Street. The south end is referred to in 1699 as “the new way from Castle Street to Dukes Court,” between the churchyard and the Mews[192]. Hatton calls Castle Street “a spacious street.” From Castle Street Hemmings Row led on the north side of the churchyard to St Martin’s Lane; anciently it was called Dirty Lane, but was renamed in 1680 from one Hemmings an apothecary who lived here. Both Castle Street and Hemmings Row were swept away when the Charing Cross Road was made in 1886. [Illustration: LEICESTER SQUARE, LOOKING NORTH, IN 1721 From an engraving by Sutton Nicholls] § 9. THE MILITARY GARDEN AND NEWPORT HOUSE The north end of St Martin’s Field had been put to other purposes before Leicester House began to be built. John Golightly the elder had in 1547 acquired from one John Cotton an acre and a half of land in the Field, which is described as having the lane coming from Colman Hedge on the west, and adjoined lands belonging to The Swan. This land, which must have been at the north-west corner of the Field, was sold by Agnes and Thomas Garland about 1613 to Mr Owen, serjeant-at-law, and other feoffees in trust for the Military Company and was then enclosed within the great brick wall which surrounded the place commonly called the Military Garden[193]. The Military Garden is said to have been established by Prince Henry, son of James I, as a place of military exercise. This seems to be based on the statement made by John Bagford[194]: Prince Henry caused a piece of ground near Leicester Fields to be walled in for the exercise of arms, which he much delighted in; a house was built at one end for an Armory and a well-furnished Library of all such books as related to arms, chivalry, military affairs, encamping, fortification &c., the best that could be got in that kind in all languages, at the charge of the Prince, who had a particular learned man for a librarian, whose name I have forgot. It was called the Artillery Ground and remained till the Restoration of King Charles the 2nd, and then it fell into the hands of the Lord Gerrard, who let the ground out to build on. Bagford was clearly writing from memory, and his narrative is in some respects inaccurate, as when he states that it was called “The Artillery Ground”; in contemporary references it is always the _Military_ Ground or Garden or Yard. The Military Garden was apparently set up in conscious imitation of the Artillery Ground in the City, where there had been a great revival in 1610. If Prince Henry was really the founder the date cannot have been later than the summer of 1612, and since the sale by the Garlands seems to have been later than the first establishment of the Military Garden that is not impossible[195]. If, however, Prince Henry was concerned in the establishment of the Military Garden and Company he cannot well have had much to do with its development and the creation of its Library. On 10th June 1610 James I had granted to John Eldred and William Whitmore for a term of 60 years two acres of land in St Martin’s Field, which had been acquired by Henry VIII from the Hospital of St Giles, and were formerly in the occupation of William Wilkynson[196]. In 1616 the land seems to have been held by Lewis Owen, Esq., Nicholas Blunt, gentleman, and others, presumably as trustees for the Military Company[197]. The two acres of land in St Martin’s Field granted to Eldred and Whitmore certainly formed part of the Military Garden. In 1652 the Military Garden or Ground is described as a piece of pasture enclosed by a high brick wall and bounded on the north by the highway from St Giles to Knightsbridge, and on the south by the house and gardens of the Earl of Leicester. On one side[198] it abutted on a way leading from the Mews to Marybone Park, by which must be meant Hedge Lane. The whole area is then given as by estimation three acres. There are few contemporary references to the Military Garden in its early days. But it seems to have been held by a society of similar character to the Honourable Artillery Company in the City, and to have been used as a place of exercise for the Westminster Train Bands. Thomas Heywood in his _Porta Pietatis_ in 1633 writes thus: “London and Westminster are two twin-sister cities ... beautified with two eminent gardens of exercise known by the names of Artillery and Military.” The first reference to the Military Garden in the Ratebooks is in 1627, when 12 houses are entered under “Millitarie Street.”[199] The next entry of the kind in 1635 includes both Newport House and Leicester House under Military Street. Military Street may be supposed here to represent the later King Street on the north side of the Military Ground; but the name is rather used for a rating area than for an actual street. Our most exact knowledge of the Military Garden is derived from the Parliamentary Survey of 1652, where it is described as: All that large house situate in the Military Ground, built with brick and covered with tile, consisting of one large spacious room called the Armory, with a kitchen and a small room under the stairs adjoining to the same on the north, and two small chambers and a garret over them. And also on the south end of the abovesaid Armory one room now used as a Library, and above stairs over the same one fair chamber called the Meeting-room. Which said house contains in length one hundred and twenty foot of assize and in breadth thirty-six foot of assize or thereabouts. The house apparently stood at the west end of the Military Garden; we know from another source that the “Artillery Gate” was at this point[200]. The description of the house in the Survey illustrates the social character of the Military Company. There are a few references to its continued existence under the Commonwealth. Howell in his _Londinopolis_[201] writes “if London hath her Artillery Garden, Westminster hath her Military.” There is mention about the same time of “the members of the Military Ground.”[202] Samuel Butler in _Hudibras_ describes Orsin as Bred up, where discipline most rare is, In Military garden Paris[203]. After the Restoration the Military Company seems to have fallen into discredit. On 31st January 1661 Richard Deacons, the clerk of the Military Company, was required to send to the Attorney-General such writings as concerned the Military Ground in order that it might be ascertained whether the title belonged to the King[204]. So far as the house and land are concerned the result seems to have been that the Military Company was dispossessed. But the Company itself continued to exist. Hatton, writing of Westminster in 1708, states[205]: Here hath been of longstanding a company called the Military Company, in number about 400, who to promote the knowledge of Arms have exercised in St Clement’s ground, usually in the upper churchyard. Those of this Society have paid commonly 2_s._ entrance and 12_d._ per quarter afterward. They were first encouraged by Prince Henry, eldest son of K. James I. Hatton’s statement may perhaps be the origin of the story given by Bagford that Prince Henry was the founder of the Military Garden. The house and site of the Military Garden passed into the possession of Charles, Lord Gerrard. In 1663 “the Lord Jarrard” appears in the Ratebooks of St Martin’s parish as resident in Military Street (meaning the road on the north side of the Military Garden). In 1665 Gerrard addressed a petition to the King, showing that the Military Ground contained four acres or thereabouts, and that he had the inheritance of two acres[206] whereon stood the house, which cost £2500, and had also a lease of other two acres[207] from the Crown at a rent of 4_s._ He prayed that if the King desired to use the latter portion, he would be pleased either to give him such a sum as others would pay for it, or in preference a grant in fee. The petition was endorsed on 11th February 1665 that His Majesty had thought of reserving the land to his own use, but referred the petition for consideration[208]. Gerrard obtained what he desired by a lease which would not expire till 1712. In 1676, when Gerrard held by lease two acres in St Martin-in-the-Fields, which together with an acre and a half adjoining were commonly called the Military Ground or Military Yard, he obtained a grant in reversion together with a further grant of three roods of waste ground, which adjoined the Military Ground on the east, and abutted on the garden wall of Newport House[209]. At the same time he received a licence to build, and at once proceeded to develop the estate. The road on the north side was renamed King Street, and a new street running parallel to it was constructed through the centre of the Military Ground, which was called Gerrard Street. A cross street connecting the two was named Macclesfield Street, after Gerrard had been made Earl of Macclesfield in 1679. Gerrard Street first appears in the Ratebooks in 1681. In Morden and Lea’s map of 1682 Gerrard Street is shown as still unfinished on the north side, and King Street as only partly built. One of the earliest inhabitants of Gerrard Street was John Dryden, who gives his house as “the fifth door on the left coming from Newport Street” (No. 43). Strype in 1720 describes Gerrard Street as “a very good street, well built and inhabited by gentry and some noblemen as the Earl of Manchester and Earl of Macclesfield.” Macclesfield House was not pulled down till 1888. King Street is now absorbed in Shaftesbury Avenue. The waste land granted to Lord Gerrard in 1676, and described as abutting on the wall of Newport House, was in part the site of an open space which as late as the reign of George III was called Barbon Square. Rimbault connected it with the family of the notorious Praise-God Barebones, who died as a very old man in 1679[210]. It may plausibly be supposed to owe its name to Praise-God’s son Dr Nicholas Barbon, the most noteworthy building undertaker in the reign of Charles II, who certainly had some association with schemes for development in this neighbourhood. Newport House with its extensive garden occupied the north-east corner of St Martin’s Field. In 1628-29 Sir William Howard for the first time paid 10_s._ Lammas money to the Churchwardens of St Martin’s “for ground part of Swan Close, whereon he has lately erected a fair dwelling house with a garden.” In 1633 George Garrard reported that Lord Newport was removed to the house in the Fields, that was Sir William Howard’s, which Sir William had given to his brother, Lord Howard, who sold it for £2500[211]. In 1634 Lord Newport paid 52_s._ Lammas money, and in the following year is described as living in Military Street next door to the Earl of Leicester. The increase of Lammas money was due to the addition of a large piece of ground for garden. In Faithorne’s map Newport House is shown at the south end of a long garden which extended northwards to a point now covered by Cambridge Circus. Morden and Lea’s map of 1682 shows Newport House and Garden as still existing. But not long afterwards the house was pulled down and the site covered by Newport Market, whilst Lichfield Street, Grafton Street and West Street were laid out where the garden had been. The irregular outline of the north-east corner of St Martin’s Field was preserved in the north end of King Street and in West Street. Strype describes Newport Market as “made very commodious, with a good market-house and shambles for the butchers.” Lichfield Street was then (in 1720) “furnished with good buildings and well-inhabited.” Newport Street, a little farther south, had been built much earlier and appears in the Ratebook for 1654, when one resident was “Mr Peeps.” When the Charing Cross Road was made in 1886 it passed right through the centre of the site of Newport House and Garden. One of the residents in Newport Street in 1664 was Captain Ryder, who is probably the Richard Ryder who gave his name to Ryder’s Court, which lay at the north-east corner of Leicester Square, immediately south of Barbon Square. Strype describes Ryder’s Court as “newly built and neat.” § 10. ST GILES’S FIELD AND SOHO North of St Martin’s Field, but divided from it by the lane afterwards represented by King Street, lay St Giles’s Field, which extended to the Uxbridge road (now Oxford Street) and was bounded on the west by Colman Hedge Lane (now Wardour Street) and on the east by Hog Lane (now absorbed in the Charing Cross Road). The whole area was somewhat over 30 acres and the greater part of it belonged to the Burton Lazar Lands of St Giles’s Hospital: but on the west side there was a narrow strip of four acres along Colman Hedge Lane which formed part of the Abingdon Lands. The Burton Lazar land is described in the grant to Henry VIII as 25 acres, but from the Survey in 1585 appears to have really been over 27 acres. It consisted of two closes; the larger was the north-east part of the Field adjoining the Close of Abingdon land; the smaller one included the whole of the south end of St Giles’s Field, and was called Camps Close, and later Kemps Close. In a Survey made in 1650 Camps Close is described as containing 8¾ acres and divided from the Military Yard by a lane on the south, whilst it abutted west on Colman Hedge Lane and north (more correctly north-east) on Hog Lane. Camps Close was approximately the area between King Street (now absorbed in Shaftesbury Avenue) and Old Compton Street, though reaching some way north of the latter. In March 1586/87, when a lease in reversion of the Close of Abingdon land was granted to Philip Knyght, two other adjoining closes in the Field are described as in the occupation of Humphrey Goselyn and William Bunche[212]. The name of Bunches Close reappears in a grant over a hundred years later. St Giles’s Field as consisting entirely of Burton Lazar and Abingdon Lands was held by James Bristow in 1585. His heir Francis Bristow obtained a renewed lease from James I for 40 years in 1606. In June 1627 King Charles I by letters patent granted to James Elliott and William Loring, on the nomination of Robert Carey, Earl of Monmouth, a lease for 31 years from the expiration of Bristow’s term. The lands described in this last lease included 25 acres of pasture in St Giles’s Field, five acres in a close near Colman Hedge and five acres in Colman Hedge Field; the two latter represent the Abingdon land in St Giles’s Field, and the Doghouse Close on the opposite side of the Lane[213]. The grant of the land in St Giles’s Field[214] was apparently transferred to Robert Carey, Earl of Monmouth, who also held a lease of Long Acre from the Mercers. He was succeeded in 1639 by his son Henry Carey, who died without issue in 1661. Soho and the adjoining fields were part of the dower of Queen Henrietta Maria, whose trustees in 1672 made a grant to the Earl of St Albans. But ultimately (probably in 1677 when the lease to Elliott and Loring expired) Charles II gave the land at Soho to his son the Duke of Monmouth. Monmouth’s widow was allowed to retain possession after her husband’s attainder. But in 1700 William III granted to the Earl of Portland all those pieces or parcels of land ... in the parish of St Anne, anciently called Kemps Field and Bunches Close Coleman Hedge or Coleman Hedge Field, containing 22 acres, and Doghouse Field _alias_ Browne’s Close ... containing 5 acres, since more lately called Soho or Soho Fields, which premises are now laid out into streets and other places ... the chief of which are: King’s Square _alias_ Soho Square, Greek Street, Church Street, Moor Street, Compton Street, Frith Street, Charles Street, Sutton Street, Queen Street, Dean Street, King’s Court, Falconberg Court, Rose Street, north side of King Street, west side of Crown Street _alias_ Hog Lane, and the south side of the road called Acton Road leading from St Giles’s towards Tyburn; bounded by this road on the north, by the said street or high road leading towards Piccadilly called King Street, over against the land called the Military Ground (now also builded upon) towards the south; and by the back part of houses and lands late in the tenure of Sir William Pulteney deceased in a street called Old Soho _alias_ Wardour Street in part, and by a lane called Hedge Lane towards the West[215]. This document is chiefly interesting for its summary of the extent of building in 1700. There had been a certain amount of building at Soho for nearly 70 years before. A reference to So Ho in the Ratebooks for St Martin’s in 1632 seems to be the earliest instance of the use of the name. Two years later comes a reference to the water course from a place called So Howe, and in 1636 there is mention of tenements at the brick kilns near Sohoe. There is also reference in the State Papers to tenements in Soho in 1637[216]. A Survey[217] made in 1650 describes eleven tenements situate in St Giles’s Field, and states that most of them stood in one range on the front north upon the highway leading to Tyburn, and were the outmost row of houses in St Giles. The majority were apparently small and mean dwellings, rented at £3 or £4; the largest which included a kitchen, parlour, chamber and two garrets, on a site measuring 64 feet by 25 feet was rented at £10 and occupied by Francis Harewell, gentleman. In another Survey[218] of the same date, relating to “the severall tenements at a place called So Ho,” there is a description of fourteen tenements and cottages; it is further stated that there were also 52 other cottages and mean habitations, the whole number being bounded with the Common (Colman) Hedge Lane west, the Tyburn Road north, a lane between Camps Field and part of the said houses south, “and so down unto the land of Mr Steele and on the land of Mr Steele down to Tyburn Road on the east.” One of the houses more particularly described is “a tenement commonly called So Ho consisting of three rooms below stairs, one chamber above and a garret, with a small backside.” It seems not unlikely that this house gave name to the district, just as Piccadilly Hall gave name to Piccadilly. But the word So-ho itself was an ancient hunting cry used when the hare was found; thus in the fifteenth century vocabulary called _Promptorium Parvulorum_ we get “Sohoe, the hare ys founde.” The fields in this district may have been the favourite hunting-ground used when the Mayor and Aldermen of the City went to inspect the Conduits at Tyburn. On such an occasion in 1562 they hunted the hare and the fox in the fields between the Conduits and St Giles’s[219]. Camps Close was described in 1650 as pasture ground and had apparently no buildings on it. Two other parcels of pasture lying along the west side of Hog Lane between Camps Close and the Tyburn Road were also apparently unbuilt. The mean tenements at Soho in 1650 must therefore have been built round the west part of the Field, perhaps having for their eastern boundary the present Dean Street. In 1671, on a representation made by Wren as to the mischief caused by small and mean habitations in the fields adjoining Soho, order was given that no more new buildings should be erected without express licence[220]. However, by 1675 the tenements in this part of St Martin’s parish had become so numerous that a special ratebook “The Soho Book” was opened. Three years later in 1678 an Act of Parliament was passed to create a new parish of St Anne, though it was not to be formally established till the church was built and constituted. At this same time a piece of land “abutting south on a parcel of ground intended for a glebe in a street called Kings Street, north on ground in the possession of Master Richard Fryth, west on a street going to Sohoe, and east on a street called Deane Street” was set apart for a parish church and cemetery. The dimensions of the site were 230 feet from east to west, and 184 feet from north to south; the land for a glebe was a narrow strip between the churchyard and King Street on which houses were to be built[221]. St Giles’s Field was laid out for building between 1675 and 1680, Dr Nicholas Barbon, the principal building undertaker of the time, being one of those who had a hand in it. Hog Lane which formed its eastern boundary had been fully built before 1682. Strype calls it “a place not over well built or inhabited.” It is still given as Hog Lane by Rocque in 1763, but afterwards the name was changed to Crown Street, which occurs as an alternative in 1700. The whole of the east side was removed when the Charing Cross Road was constructed in 1886. On the west side of the Lane in Camps Close the Greek Church for Greek refugees was founded in 1677. The enterprise not proving successful its promoters in 1680 offered the building for sale to the parish; the Churchwardens of St Martin’s were ready to pay £200, which was not accepted. In the Churchwardens Minute Book under date December 1681 it is stated that the Greek Church had been viewed and assessed at £7; this assessment was rejected by the Greeks, and the church, which was in consequence surrendered, was in 1684 assigned to the French Protestants. The French congregation retained possession till 1822. After various vicissitudes the building was purchased for the Church of England in 1849, and became St Mary’s Soho. The chancel was rebuilt in 1874. The church now stands on the west side of the Charing Cross Road. On the south Camps Close was divided from the Military Ground by a lane which when Lord Gerrard was developing his estate was named King Street; it is already so called in 1678. By 1682 King Street had been partly built up on both sides. Strype describes it as “a pretty good street but not so wide as most in these parts, yet well inhabited.” It is now absorbed in Shaftesbury Avenue. Parallel to King Street on the north was Church Street, which seems to have been built about 1679; it can have had nothing to do with the Greek Church, and the name is probably to be associated with St Anne’s, Soho, to which it leads. Though the site of St Anne’s was fixed in 1678 it was not actually built till 1686. Hatton calls Church Street “a regular and fine street.” North again was Compton Street, which owed its name to Sir Francis Compton. Compton Street in Soho Fields is mentioned in March 1681. Strype describes it as “broad, and the houses well built; but of no great account for its inhabitants which are chiefly French.” Compton Street and Church Street are crossed by Greek Street and Frith Street, both of which started from King Street and lead up to Soho Square. Greek Street, which is the farther east, took name from the Greek Church and was built about 1681. Hatton calls it “pleasant and spacious.” Frith Street was built about 1680; Hatton, who describes it as “a very considerable street,” states that it was “so called from Mr Fryth, a great (and once rich) builder.” Richard Fryth, as we have seen, owned land in the neighbourhood in 1678, and was one of those who in February 1681 conveyed the site of Monmouth House to the Duke. He was no doubt one of the principal undertakers concerned in laying out Soho. Nevertheless it has been alleged that Frith Street is an error and that the real name of the street and its builder was Thrift[222]. But Frith Street is the name which appears in the Ratebook in 1680, and it occurs in 1693 and 1700. Thrift Street, which appears in Rocque’s map in 1746, is clearly a corruption and is corrected in the later map of 1763. Strype describes Frith Street as “graced with good buildings especially towards Soho.” Dean Street, which runs parallel to Frith Street on the west, is given in 1678 as the eastern boundary of the site for St Anne’s Church. But Morden and Lea’s map in 1682 shows it as built only at the north end. Hatton in 1708 calls it “very spacious and regular.” Soho Square was originally called King’s Square after Gregory King, the herald, who was also an engraver and surveyor and was employed by Ogilby on his map of London and Book of Roads. Between 1675 and 1680 Gregory King made a survey of Soho Fields and projected the Square, of which he states that he drew up “the first articles for the building thereof.” The Square, which was built in 1681, was long a fashionable place of residence. In addition to the Duke of Monmouth the first residents included the Earl of Stamford and Sir Henry Inglesby. In November 1689 John Evelyn “went to London to winter at Soho in the great Square.”[223] In 1693 the Earls of Bolingbroke, Carlisle, Fauconberg and Yarmouth and Sir Richard Onslow (afterwards Speaker of the House of Commons) all had their houses there. So it was natural that in the _Spectator_ for 1710 Sir Roger de Coverley should be represented as lying there. It is still called King’s Square by Hatton in 1708. Monmouth House, which stood on the south side of Soho Square, is said to have been designed by Sir Christopher Wren. It is related that in January 1682 the Duke was serenaded by several gentlemen at his house in Soho Square. Monmouth’s residence here no doubt explains why “So Ho!” was taken for his watchword at the battle of Sedgemoor; but a foolish tale, accepted by Pennant, derived the name of the district from its use as the Duke’s battle-cry. Monmouth House was sold in 1693 and eventually came into the possession of William first Lord Bateman (d. 1744), whose son let it in the reign of George III to the Comte de Guerchy, the French ambassador. The house was pulled down about 1775. J. T. Smith, who visited it with Nollekens, whilst it was being demolished, describes the gate entrance as massive ironwork supported by stone piers; within the gates there was a spacious courtyard; there were eight rooms on the ground floor which were richly decorated[224]. The courtyard is shown clearly in Rocque’s map of 1746. The gardens extended back to Queen Street, which crossed Frith Street from Greek Street to Dean Street. Strype describes Queen Street as “a place not very considerable, having on the north side dead walls, which generally are dirty and ill kept.” The walls were of course those of the garden. When Monmouth House was pulled down Bateman’s Buildings were erected here, and the street is now called Bateman Street. Of the minor streets in the district Soho Street, which leads from the Square to Oxford Street, was originally called Charles Street, and is described by Strype as “a place of no great note for inhabitants.” Carlisle Street, which leads west from the Square, owes its name to a house belonging to the Earl of Carlisle. But about 1692 the third Earl built himself a new house on the east side of the Square[225], which as Carlisle House had a great history in the eighteenth century. Carlisle Street had various changes of name. When Strype wrote it was called King’s Square Street, “of small account.” But this name applied only to the eastern half as far as Dean Street. The continuation to the west was called King’s Square Court, of which Strype writes “’tis a place well built and inhabited and hath one very large house which takes up all the west end or front”; this was the original Carlisle House. Before Rocque’s map was drawn in 1746 King’s Square Street had become Carlisle Street, a name which was extended to the whole street about thirty years later. King’s Square Court was a very fashionable residence at the beginning of the eighteenth century. When Strype wrote there was still waste ground between Dean Street and Wardour Street, though it was then--in 1720--being laid out for building. Wardour Street itself was still not completely finished on either side[226]. A number of smaller streets and places are mentioned above as built before 1700[227]. Moor Street was a short piece running south-east from Compton Street to the end of Church Street; it was partly absorbed in Shaftesbury Avenue. Sutton Street led east from Soho Square to Hog Lane, and still remains; it was called after Sutton Court the seat of the Fauconbergs near Chiswick. Fauconberg or Falconbridge Court opened out of Sutton Street on the north; it was behind Fauconberg House (No. 20 Soho Square), which was the residence of Thomas Belasyse, Earl of Fauconberg, who married Mary, third daughter of Oliver Cromwell. Rose Street led from Greek Street to Hog Lane. [Illustration: SOHO SQUARE, LOOKING NORTH From an engraving by Sutton Nicholls ] § 11. THE ORIGINAL PICCADILLY With the building of Soho the survey of the part of the Plan to the east of Colman Hedge Lane is completed. In the western part building may be said to have radiated from “Piccadilly.” It will therefore be best to make the enterprise of Robert Baker our starting-point. Robert Baker, as we have seen[228], acquired from the heirs of John Golightly, not later than 1612, a strip of land in Windmill Field, bounded east and west by land which in 1585 had been held by Thomas Wilson. Its south end butted on the road from Colnbrook, nearly opposite to the present Haymarket but extending somewhat farther east. At the north end it reached to the Windmill, which was just outside its north-west corner. Its western side was along the present Great Windmill Street, and the Windmill stood a little south of the west corner of that street and Brewer Street, where Windmill Yard was afterwards built. The strip of land was narrow, not much over 100 feet, so that it did not extend as far east as the former Arundel Street. Thomas Garland alleged that it was only half an acre, but it was apparently in reality nearly three times as much. Robert Baker was resident in St Martin’s parish before 1608, when he is described as tailor and subscribed 20_s._ to the repair of the church. Down to 1616 he continues to be styled “tailor” in the Churchwardens’ Accounts; after that date he is called “gentleman”; this may mark his retirement from business. He was a man of considerable wealth, who apart from his lands left his daughters portions of £600 apiece. His purchase at the Windmill was described in 1624 as “lying very fit and necessary for building.” He seems to have lost no time in its development, and from 1612 onwards paid 30_s._ Lammas money to St Martin’s parish for land which he had enclosed and built upon near the Windmill. When he died in April 1623 he left a bequest to St Martin’s parish of £2. 10_s._ and 10_s._ for bread for the poor. In the Overseers’ Accounts he is then for the first time described as of “Pickadilly Hall.” This has been generally considered the earliest instance of the use of the name. But a little earlier there is a reference to William Cable, yeoman, dwelling near “Pickadilly Hall.”[229] In the Chancery suit between Bridle and Garland in 1624 it was stated that “divers messuages, tenements and dwelling houses are and be lately erected and builded, and are now commonly called and known by the name of Pickadilly Hall.”[230] The origin of the name Piccadilly has been much debated. Thomas Blount in his _Glossographia_ in 1656 wrote: A Pickadil is that round hem, or the several divisions set together about the skirt of a garment or other thing; also a kinde of stiff collar, made in fashion of a band. Hence perhaps the famous ordinary near St James’s called Pickadilly took denomination, because it was then the utmost or skirt house of the suburbs that way. Others say it took name from this: that one Higgins a tailor, who built it, got most of his estate by Pickadillies, which in the last age were much worn in England. Now that the true history of the site is known “Higgins a tailor” proves to be a myth, and the famous ordinary, as we shall see, was not the original Piccadilly. Nevertheless there is this much truth in the story that Robert Baker the original builder of Piccadilly Hall had been a tailor, and he is still so described in the record of his burial[231]. But in his will he styles himself “gentleman” and makes no mention of Pickadilly Hall by name. That is so far evidence that the name which attached to his house was not one of his own choosing. It is clear, however, that it had already popular currency, and it may very possibly have been a nickname bestowed in canting allusion to Baker’s former trade and to the fortune which he made by the sale of Pickadillies. This receives confirmation from the statement of George Garrard in 1635 “Simone Austbiston’s house is newly christened. It is called Shaver’s Hall, as other neighbouring places thereabout are nicknamed Tart Hall, Pickadel Hall. At first no conceit there was of the builder’s being a barber &c.”[232] Garrard clearly had in mind the nicknaming of houses in allusion to the past trade of their owners, and it is probably some tradition to this effect that furnished the foundation for Blount’s story of the mythical Higgins. The reference to Pickadilly in the Overseers’ Accounts for 1623 may seem to refer to an individual house, but in 1624 “Pickadilly Hall” is given definitely as the name of “divers houses and messuages.” In the record of Lammas payments for 1623-24 it is “for land near the Windmill builded upon and lately called Pickadilly”; in 1627-28 it is land “usually called Pickadillie.” Clearly by this time the name was applied to a locality rather than to any particular house. So in the Ratebook for 1627 we get three houses under the head “Pecadilly”: the first was “Mrs Mary Baker, widdowe, 11_s._” and the other two were John Wood, 2_s._ and Isabel Ridley, 4_s._ 4_d._ Similarly in the 1633 edition of Gerard’s _Herbal_ there is a statement that “the small wild buglosse grows upon the drie ditch bankes about Pickadilla.”[233] This extension of the name led to its application to the famous ordinary and gaming-house, which stood undoubtedly on the opposite or south side of the street. This last use of the name has led in return to an unfounded belief that there was also an ordinary on the north side on Robert Baker’s land. These debates and confusions make it important that we should know exactly the character of the houses which were first built on the land acquired from the Garlands by Robert Baker. Fortunately we have in a Parliamentary Survey made in June 1651 a precise description of “the Range wherein Mrs Baker’s house standeth, abutting on the way leading from St Giles towards Knightsbridge south, and the land of Mr Poultney north and east, and a footpath leading from Peckadilley towards the Windmill west.”[234] Altogether there were eleven houses. The most northerly was a house of three rooms with a stable and a small plot before the door, which was in the occupation of Mrs Baker. Next to this[235] on the south was a larger house of three stories with a garden and backside, covering an area of three-quarters of an acre, which was also in Mrs Baker’s occupation. The third house on the south of the last was still larger, with six rooms on each of two floors and six garrets above. It had a coach-house, courtyard, garden and backsides, with an area of half an acre. Then came two smaller houses of no special interest. These five houses were all clearly on the east side of the path leading to the Windmill. In Faithorne’s map of 1658 three detached houses are shown in the lane to the Windmill with two smaller houses on the south towards the highway. Robert Baker’s own house (the original Piccadilly Hall, if that was ever the name of an individual house) will have been the second or third. He left the house in his own occupation to his widow, and in 1651 Mary Baker probably lived in the second. In the Ratebook for 1665 Mary Baker appears under the head of “Pickadillie” as resident in Black Horse Yard. Black Horse Yard is known to have been some little distance up the east side of Windmill Street[236]. The third house may probably be the one alluded to in the statement made in 1631 that John Blundstone a Roman Catholic priest was “much at Piccadilly Hall, at the Countess of Shrewsbury’s.”[237] But in any case it is clear that the original Piccadilly Hall was not in the line of any part of the street afterwards at any time known as Piccadilly, but was situate a little way up the present Great Windmill Street. The sixth house described in the Parliamentary Survey of 1651 was a tenement called by the name of the Signe of The Crowne, strongly built with brick and tile: consisting of a cellar divided into a kitchen and a buttery there: and over the same two rooms divided into Drinking Rooms: and in the first story above stairs two chambers, and over the same two garret rooms. There was also a stable, and the whole area was a quarter of an acre. On the east of The Crown was an exactly similar tenement called The Feathers. On the east of The Feathers was a somewhat smaller tenement called The Hornes, beyond which were three small tenements, only one of which had more than two rooms. The Crown was clearly the corner house of the later Windmill Street[238] and Coventry Street. At this point appears Crown Yard in Morden and Lea’s map of 1682. Hatton in 1708 mentions Crown Yard on the north side of Coventry Street near Pickadilly, and Strype in 1720 refers to “Crown Yard a place for stabling near unto the corner of Windmill Street.” The positions of The Feathers and The Hornes are clearly described as lying to the east of The Crown; they therefore faced the roadway represented by the present Coventry Street. The three smaller tenements were possibly on the same line, or they may have lain backwards on a line parallel to Windmill Street. The Crown and The Feathers were obviously taverns, but there is nothing in the description of them to suggest that they were of such a size or had such accommodation as would be necessary to a place of fashionable resort. In the absence of other evidence the idea that there was ever an ordinary on the north side of the road must be abandoned; still less acceptable is the suggestion sometimes made that Robert Baker had himself kept an ordinary there. The last six houses may possibly be the base new buildings at Piccadilly to which reference is made in 1637[239]. If so they were in all likelihood not built till after the erection in 1635 of the famous gaming-house and ordinary on the other side of the road. Faithorne in 1658 shows a substantial block of two or more houses at the corner facing Coventry Street, which no doubt represents The Crown and the adjoining tenements. Some points of difficulty arise with regard to the description of the site of the houses at Piccadilly in 1651. According to the Survey the whole area was over 15 roods or nearly four acres. But the land acquired by Robert Baker from the Garlands did not exceed an acre and a half. The western boundary both in 1612 and 1651 was the footpath leading to the Windmill; any extension must therefore have been eastwards. If the areas given in 1651 are even approximately accurate, Robert Baker or his widow must subsequently to the purchase from the Garlands have acquired the plot on the east marked W. in the Plan; the two plots together may have been nearly three acres. The northern and eastern bounds of Mary Baker’s land in 1651 are given as the land of Mr Pulteney. Pulteney must therefore have become possessed of the narrow strip of Abingdon land shown in the Plan on the north end of Widow Golightly’s land, and also of the Close of Burton Lazar land on the west of Colman Hedge Lane. This Close is described in 1650 as The Leastall lying on the east side of Mrs Baker’s land[240]. We can now go back to the history of Robert Baker’s land. His wife Mary, who survived him for many years, lived on near the Windmill. In 1623-24 payment of the Lammas money was made by the executors of Samuel Baker[241], who was a cousin and executor of Robert Baker’s will. Subsequent payments are made by Mrs Mary Baker. We have seen that in 1627 there were three houses at Pickadilly, and the names in the Ratebooks for 1631 and 1633 suggest that there were by that time four or five; we know that in 1651 there were 11 houses, and in the Ratebook for 1652 there are 12 houses under Pickadilly. Mary Baker had no doubt from time to time built additional houses. On 7th February 1637/8 George Garrard wrote: “A sentence in the Star Chamber this term hath demolished all the houses about Piccadilly (by Midsummer they must be pulled down) which have stood since the 13th of King James[242]; they are found to be great nuisances and much foul the springs of water which pass by those houses to Whitehall and the City.”[243] In October 1637 a report had been made on base new buildings at Piccadilly and elsewhere[244]. It was probably to meet these complaints and the threatened demolition of her houses that Mary Baker put forward (probably in the spring of 1638) a proposal that whereas it is conceived that the standing of the houses at Piccadilly doth annoy the springs of water which serve Whitehall, Somerset House and the Star Chamber, ... to the end that these waters may be made sweet and serviceable she would at her own cost convey the water from the springs in a sufficient drain of brick until it came about the houses, and from thence in leaden pipes of such sort as the Surveyor-General should approve to the receptacles from whence the pipes were already laid[245]. Sir James Oxenden, whose son had lately married Mrs Baker’s daughter[246], added his undertaking that if this offer should be accepted he would see the work performed. The proposal was apparently approved; but on 27th June 1639, Inigo Jones, as Surveyor, reported that the making good the water at Pickadilly, which had been corrupted by the buildings near to the Conduit Head, had been referred to him to see the work undertaken by Mrs Baker and Sir James Oxenden properly performed. They had sundry times pressed him to give a certificate to that effect, with the intent as he conceived to put the King to the charge of doing such things as were unfinished or not yet begun, which things were of the greatest importance, and ought to have been completed by Michaelmas last. He now begged that order might be made fixing a time for the full finishing of the work[247]. This dispute as to the mischief caused by the buildings probably furnishes the explanation for the fine of £1000, which in the spring of 1638 was imposed on Mrs Baker for continuing buildings unlawfully erected to the annoyance of His Majesty’s springs of water[248]. The large fine, if actually enforced, was perhaps in the nature of a composition for the lack of a licence to build. At all events there is no proof that the houses were ever pulled down; Lammas money continued to be paid regularly each year and by 1651 the number of houses had further increased. As we have seen, Mary Baker was resident in her house at the Windmill in 1651, and she probably lived on there till 1665 when payment of Lammas money was made in her name. She must have died not long after, since on 24th July 1666 a grant was made to Thomas Elliott and Thomas Ross of lands escheated by the death of ---- Baker, late of Pickadilly, without issue male[249]. Nevertheless Mrs Baker or her heirs appear as paying the Lammas till 1669. The land was then acquired by Col. Thomas Panton, who paid 30_s._ Lammas for land at Pickadilly in 1670. Of Panton and his buildings in this neighbourhood there will be more to be said later[250]. [Illustration: PICCADILLY AND ST GILES’S From Faithorne’s Map, 1658] § 12. SHAVER’S HALL: THE 17TH CENTURY GAMING-HOUSE We may now turn to the more famous building on the south side of the highway, which also came to bear sometimes the name of Piccadilly Hall or House. The area at the top of the Haymarket between that street and Whitcomb Street was anciently known as Scavenger’s Close, which according to the Plan contained nearly three and a half acres. By that name it was held in 1585 by Thomas Wilson, and was therefore presumably part of the Mercers Lands. In all likelihood it may be identified with the Close of three acres of Mercers Lands of which the bounds were imperfectly given in 1391, and is probably the Close of Mercers Lands the exact position of which could not be traced in 1650[251]. Scavenger’s Close seems to have been open ground, except for the presence on it of a Gunpowder House and a Conduit House, till 1635. On 3rd June 1634 George Garrard wrote the Bowling Green in the Spring Garden was by the King’s commandment put down for one day, but by the intercession of the Queen it was reprieved for this year: but hereafter it shall be no common bowling place. There was kept in it an ordinary of six shillings a meal (when the King’s proclamation allows but two elsewhere), continual bibbing and drinking wine all day under the trees, two or three quarrels every week. It was grown scandalous and insufferable: besides my Lord Digby being reprehended for striking in the King’s garden, he answered that he took it for a common bowling place, where all paid money for their coming in[252]. The Bowling-Green at Spring Gardens had an ancient history. There is reference in 1547 and again in 1585 to the royal houses or places of games situated by the Park of Westminster and called the Tennys Playes, Bowling Allyes, Cocke Place and Phesaunt Courtes[253]. Thus they were under the control of the Lord Chamberlain, whose deputy in 1634 was no doubt employing them for his personal profit. The incident which led to the suppression of the Bowling-Green at Spring Gardens was a fight there on 3rd June 1634, between Lord Digby and young Will Crofts[254]. Digby, who was son of the Earl of Bristol, was in consequence imprisoned, and his resentment against the Court led to the active share which he took a few years later in the commencement of the proceedings against the Earl of Strafford. When this popular resort of fashion thus came to an untimely end it was natural that those who had found its conduct so profitable should seek an opportunity for its revival elsewhere. On 5th March 1635 James Howell wrote to Lord Strafford that there was a difference like to fly high betwixt my Lord Chamberlain and my Lord of Leicester about a Bowling Green that my Lord Chamberlain had given his barber leave to set up in lieu of that in the common garden in the field under my Lord of Leicester’s house, but the matter after some ado is taken up[255]. The Bowling-Green in Swan Close or Leicester Fields had of course only been recently established[256], and its owner had no doubt taken alarm at the prospect of a highly patronised competitor. However, as Howell states, the difficulty was amicably settled, and the new Bowling-Green was established at Scavenger’s Close early in the summer of 1635. The Lord Chamberlain was Philip Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, who in his capacity as keeper of Spring Gardens had appointed his gentleman barber, Simon Osbaldeston, to be his deputy, under a patent dated 8th July 1631. With reference to Osbaldeston’s new enterprise George Garrard wrote to Viscount Conway on 30th May 1635: Simone Austbiston’s house is newly christened. It is called Shaver’s Hall, as other neighbouring places thereabout are nicknamed Tart Hall, Pickadel Hall. At first no conceit there was of the builder’s being a barber, but it came upon my Lord of Dunbar’s losing of 3000_l._ at one sitting; whereon they said a Northern Lord was shaved there; but now, putting both together, I fear it be a nickname of the place, as Nick and Froth is at Petworth, as long as the house stands. My Lord Chamberlain knows not of it yet, but he’ll chafe abominably when he comes to know it[257]. A few weeks later on 24th June Garrard writing on the same theme to the Earl of Strafford relates that: Since the Spring Gardens was put down we have by a servant of the Lord Chamberlain’s, a new Spring Garden erected in the fields behind the Mews, where is built a fair house and two bowling greens made to entertain gamesters and bowlers at an excessive rate; for I believe it hath cost him above 4000_l._; a dear undertaking for a gentleman barber. My Lord Chamberlain much frequents that place where they bowl great matches[258]. Shaver’s Hall was as much a gaming-house as a bowling-place, and the very fact of its sumptuous extravagance perhaps made it at once a resort of fashion. One of its earliest frequenters was Sir John Suckling the poet, of whom Garrard wrote in 1634 that he was “famous for nothing but a great gambler.”[259] Aubrey, who calls Suckling “the greatest gallant of his time, the greatest gamester both for bowling and cards,” preserves a story of how his sisters came “to the Peccadillo bowling-green crying for fear he should lose all their portions.”[260] Clarendon in his _History of the Great Rebellion_[261] writes of 1641 with reference to himself: Mr Hyde going to a place called Piccadilly (which was a fair house for entertainment and gaming, with handsome gravel walks with shade, and where were an upper and lower bowling-green, whither very many of the nobility and gentry of the best quality resorted both for exercise and conversation) as soon as ever he came into the garden the Earl of Bedford came to him and told him: He was glad he was come hither, for there was a friend of his in the lower ground who needed his counsel. Simon Osbaldeston was the conductor of the Piccadilly gaming-house and the famous ordinary there in their palmiest days from 1635 to 1641, paying £4 rent to the Overseers of St Martin’s for the house and grounds[262]. He also appears in the Ratebooks as tenant (perhaps under Mrs Baker) of a house at Pickadilly, paying 8_s._ 6_d._ in 1638, and 18_s._ 6_d._ in 1640. Osbaldeston was succeeded by a Captain Geares, who conducted the gaming-house for a dozen years or more, and like his predecessor seems to have resided at Piccadilly. It is during Geares’ time that we get the best description of the house and grounds in a Parliamentary Survey made in June 1651[263]: The tenement called Shaver’s Hall, strongly built with brick and covered with lead: consisting of one large cellar commodiously divided into six rooms, and over the same four fair rooms ten steps in ascent from the ground at three several ways to the going into the said house: all very well paved with Purbeck stone well-fitted and jointed: and above stairs in the first story four spacious rooms: also out of one of the said rooms one fair Balcony opening with a pleasant prospect southwards to the Bowling Alleys. And in the second story six rooms and over the same a fair walk, leaded and inclosed with rails very curiously carved and wrought. Also one very large staircase, very strong and curiously wrought, leading from the bottom of the said house very conveniently and pleasantly up into all the said rooms, and up to the leaded walk at the top of the said house. As also adjoining to a wall on the west part thereof one shed divided into six rooms, and adjoining to the north part one range consisting of three large rooms used for kitchens and one other room used for a coalhouse; and above the kitchens two lofts divided into fair chambers. As also one fair Tennis Court very strongly built with brick and covered with tile, well accommodated with all things fitting for the same. As also one tenement therunto adjoining, consisting of three rooms below stairs and three rooms above stairs. Also at the gate or coming in to the upper Bowling Alley one Parlour Lodge consisting of one fair room at each side of the gate. As also one fair pair of stairs at twelve of descent leading down into the lower Bowling Alley two ways and meeting at the bottom in a fair room, under the highway or footpath leading between the two brick walls east and west. And in the lower ground one fair Bowling Alley and one Orchard wall planted with several choice of fruit trees. As also one pleasant Banqueting House, and one other fair and pleasant room called the Green Room and one other Conduit House and two other turrets adjoining to the wall, consisting of two rooms in each of them one above the other. The ground whereon the said buildings stand together with two fair Bowling Alleys, orchard, garden, gravelly walkes and other green walks and courts and courtyards containing by estimation three acres and a half, lying between a road-way leading from Charing Cross to Knightsbridge, west, and a highway leading from Charing Cross towards the So Hoe, east, abutting on the Earl of Suffolk’s brick wall south and a way leading from St Giles to Knightsbridge north[264]: now in the occupation of Captain Geeres and is worth _per annum_ 150_l._ The mention of the kitchens in this Survey shows that Shaver’s Hall like its predecessor at Spring Gardens became a fashionable ordinary. As such it was often referred to as Piccadilly Hall and from the fact that this name was applied specially to the gaming-house and ordinary there has been a common confusion between the original building of Robert Baker and the later and more famous erection of Simon Osbaldeston. From the Survey it is obvious that Shaver’s Hall and its grounds occupied the whole of the ancient Scavenger’s Close, bounded on the north by what is now Coventry Street, west by the Haymarket and east by Whitcomb Street; on the south, as the Plan of 1585 shows, it extended nearly to James Street, or the present Orange Street. The Gaming-House stood at the north-west corner, where the Gunpowder House is marked on the Plan. Here were the dining-rooms and gaming-rooms, with the kitchens and offices in a block on the north side. The roof was leaded and surrounded with an ornamental railing to make a pleasant open air walk; the use of the leads for such a purpose was a common feature in Elizabethan and Jacobean mansions. The grounds were divided into two parts by a public footpath, the existence of which is shown on the Plan. In the upper part were the Tennis-Court and one Bowling Alley. Access was obtained to the lower part by stairs through a tunnel under the footpath. In the lower part was the second Bowling Alley with gravelled walks and gardens and some other buildings, amongst which was a Conduit-House, an older building which is figured roughly on the Plan. Shaver’s Hall is probably the Piccadilly House which in August 1650 was assigned to Colonel Berkstead to quarter soldiers in[265]. Under the Puritan rule the gaming-house no doubt suffered an eclipse as a fashionable resort, and it did not revive after the Restoration. Who succeeded Geares as proprietor does not appear. The payments of £4 for rent or Lammas money are entered as received from “the owners of Pickadilly House and bowling-green.” In 1664 Colonel Thomas Panton purchased the site of Shaver’s Hall with a view to its development for building. Panton had himself been a notorious gambler, but after making, as it is said, a fortune of £1500 a year in a single night, could never be persuaded to handle cards or dice again. He had already set out the ground, laid the foundations and commenced building, when in May 1671 as a result of the recent proclamation against unauthorized buildings he was compelled to petition for a licence to proceed with his scheme. He represented that he had purchased a parcel of ground at Pickadilly, part of it being the two bowling-greens fronting the Haymarket, the other part lying on the north of the Tennis-Court, upon which several old houses were standing, which he had demolished in order to improve the site and make the place more uniform. In another document it was explained that in addition to building on the bowling-greens he proposed to make “a fair street of good building between the Haymarket and Hedge Lane,” which was to be called Panton Street, with other fair buildings fronting the Haymarket. The matter was referred to Christopher Wren as Surveyor-General, who reported: I have viewed the said place and find the petitioner’s allegations as far as I can judge to be true, and that the design of building shown to me may be very useful to the publique, especially by opening a new street from the Haymarket to Leicester Fields, which will ease in some measure the great passage of the Strand, and will cure the noysomeness of that part. On Wren’s recommendation a licence was granted to Panton, provided he built of brick, with party walls, sufficient scantlings, good paving in the streets and sufficient sewers and conveyances for the water. There was a further condition that no brewhouses, melting-houses or other noisome trades were to be allowed[266]. It is not clear that the actual Gaming-House was pulled down at this time. Probably it was only altered to make it suitable for a private residence. As such it was occupied from 1673 to 1686 by Henry Coventry, who was for some years Secretary of State under Charles II. Coventry dates letters from Piccadilly in 1674 and 1675[267], and Henry Savile writing in 1686 to Lord Halifax refers to Coventry’s residence as Piccadilly Hall. This was no doubt a survival from the application of that name to the ordinary and gaming-house at Shaver’s Hall. Coventry’s long residence here gave the adjoining street its permanent name as Coventry Street, whilst the eastern and southern limits of his house and grounds are marked by Arundel Place (formerly Coventry Court) at the top of the Haymarket. Panton Street was laid out on the lines of the footpath marked on the Plan of 1585 and referred to in the Survey of Shaver’s Hall. Strype calls it “a good open street, inhabited by tradesmen.” On its south side in the reign of George I was “Hickford’s Great Room,” which was the principal auction room of the time. In a sale-catalogue for 1728 the back door of Mr Hickford’s Great Room is described as “facing the Tennis Court in James Street in the Haymarket.” Thomas Hickford was living in Panton Street in 1717. Oxenden Street, which crosses Panton Street to Coventry Street, appears in the Ratebooks in 1675. Hatton describes it as “a pretty broad and considerable street.” Amongst the residents in 1717 were the Countess of Newport and Brigadier Panton. Here Richard Baxter, the Nonconformist divine, had a chapel on the east side of Henry Coventry’s house; but being disturbed by the King’s drums, which Mr Secretary Coventry caused to be beaten under the windows, afterwards gave it to St Martin’s parish. Baxter built his meeting-house in 1676; according to Calamy he had but once preached there before he was disturbed, and Mr Seddon, a minister who afterwards preached for him, was sent to the Gatehouse prison at Westminster[268]. After the acquisition of the meeting-house by the parish it was used as a chapel of ease; it stood on the west side of the street and Strype states that it was called The Tabernacle. Ultimately it was sold to the Scottish Church and now forms part of the site of the Haymarket Stores. The Piccadilly tennis-court has been identified commonly but as it would seem erroneously with the famous court on the south side of James or Orange Street; but that would have been outside the bounds of Shaver’s Hall, the tennis-court of which moreover appears to have been in the upper garden to the north of the present Panton Street[269]. Thus the notorious Shaver’s Hall came to an end after an existence of a little over thirty years. Phil Porter wrote of it in 1686 in his _Wit and Drollery_: Farewell my dearest Piccadilly, Notorious for great dinners. Oh! what a Tennis Court was there! Alas! too good for sinners. [Illustration: MORDEN AND LEA’S MAP OF 1682 6. Murrell’s Yard 7. Naked Boy Alley 11. Lady Herbert’s 19. Fleece Yard 24. Salters Court 28. Nag’s Head Inn 29. White Horse Inn 30. Phenix Inn 33. Coventry’s House 37. Windmill Yard 38. Black Horse Yard 39. Conde Court 40. Crown Yard 57. Chequer Inn 58. Swan Inn 76. Dukes Court ] § 13. SUFFOLK BUILDINGS AND JAMES STREET The grounds of Shaver’s Hall were bounded, as described above, on the south by the Earl of Suffolk’s wall. The position of this wall was a little north of James or Orange Street. The Close on the south is described on the Plan of 1585 as “Widow Golightly.” This Close was in the occupation of her grand-daughter’s husband Thomas Garland in 1610, when James I made a grant of various lands to John Eldred and William Whitmore. The grant included two acres of pasture in the parish of St Martin-in-the-Fields, which abutted east on a certain private lane next adjoining to the Mews, whilst on a part of the west side was the great highway adjoining to an almshouse, which had been recently built; on the south was a close of pasture containing about one acre; and on the north-west side was another close of pasture, wherein “le Conduite hed” stood. A further piece of land included in the grant was a close of three acres of pasture formerly in the tenure of William Depon and now of Thomas Garland, which also abutted east on a private lane adjoining the Mews, the highway adjoining the new almshouse on the south-west, and the two acres of pasture near “le Conduite hed” on the north-west[270]. These three plots of land clearly make up the Close shown in the Plan to the south of Scavenger’s Close. The area of the Close is not marked on the Plan; as shown it would have been little over four and a half acres; but possibly the Close was somewhat larger than it appears on the Plan[271], so that the discrepancy may not be serious. A part of the Close may be identified with the Close of three acres of pasture which had been purchased from John Morys by Henry VIII in 1536, and a few years later was held by William Depon[272]. In 1575 there is mention that a close abutting upon The Pound and called Dippen’s Close, which was then in the tenure of Widow Golightly, was Lammas land[273]. The Conduit Head will be the one which we know stood in the south part of Scavenger’s Close. The private lane next the Mews can only be Hedge Lane. The building of the almshouses near Charing Cross is mentioned in the accounts of the Overseers of St Martin’s in 1605. They were on the south side of what is now Cockspur Street, and were pulled down in 1685 when new almshouses were built in Chapel Yard, Hog Lane. The place where the almshouses stood came to be called Townesend; the parish had other land there on which houses were built; Sir Gregory Fenner and his widow lived in one of them for many years. The great highway adjoining the almshouses must be taken to include the road both to the south and west of the Close, the latter of course being that which became the Haymarket. The grant to Eldred and Whitmore was perhaps only made to be disposed of, and these parcels of land were acquired by the Earl of Suffolk. The Earls of Suffolk during the reigns of James I and Charles I resided at Charing Cross in the mansion which had been built as Northampton House and after 1643 became Northumberland House. Probably the ground was intended to be used for a garden and the erection of stables. When the Close was included in the grant made to the Earl of St Albans in May 1662 it is described as “called Suffolk stable-yard, containing three acres”[274]; and in a list of quit-rents due to the Manor of St James in 1676 there appears £1 from the Earl of Suffolk for stabling at the Mews since converted into tenements[275]. A Survey made in 1650 describes sixteen tenements, a stable and four sheds which adjoined the east side of the Lower Bowling Alley and Suffolk wall[276]. These must therefore have lain along the west side of Hedge Lane. They are presumably the buildings which Faithorne’s map of 1658 shows at the north-east corner. The Close having been included in the grant to the Earl of St Albans in 1662 was probably laid out for building under his direction in the two following years. When, however, the Earl of St Albans in October 1674 obtained a grant of ground for the site of St James’s Church, a provision was made that the site of Suffolk Buildings was to be conveyed by him to the Earl of Suffolk[277]. Suffolk Yard Buildings was the name first given to the houses erected on the site, and they so appear in the Ratebook for 1674. But before long the name was changed to Great Suffolk Street and Little Suffolk Street. The former is now Suffolk Street, and the latter (which originally extended eastwards to Hedge Lane) is Suffolk Place. The Close of Suffolk Lands extended as far south as the present Cockspur Street, but the lower end of Suffolk Street was cut off when Pall Mall East was made about 1820 shortly before Trafalgar Square was laid out. Suffolk Buildings were originally of a good residential character. The Earl of Suffolk himself had a house here on the west side of the street; on 10th July 1666 the City granted a quill to him for the accommodation of his house in Suffolk Buildings[278]. Sir Philip Howard lived here from 1665 to 1672, and the Bishop of Hereford and Lady Dysart both write hence in 1669[279]. Mary Davis, the actress, lived from 1667 to 1676 in a house in Suffolk Street, which Charles II furnished for her richly: “which is a most infinite shame,” wrote Pepys. There was also a famous ordinary called The Cock. Pepys writes on 15th March 1669: W. Hewer and I did walk to the Cocke at the end of Suffolk Streete, where I never was, a great ordinary, mightily cried up, and there bespoke a pullett; which while dressing he and I walked into St James’s Park, and thence back and dined very handsome, with a good soup and pullett, for 4_s._ 6_d._ the whole. Pepys was so well pleased that he and Hewer dined there again on 2nd April “with great content”; and five days later with his wife and a party of friends Pepys dined at The Cock, “mighty merry, this house being famous for good meat and particularly pease-pudding.”[280] Since Suffolk Street was always a _cul-de-sac_[281], The Cock was presumably at the north end where Garland’s Hotel now is. Evelyn also relates that the Councillors of the Board of Trade dined at The Cock in Suffolk Street on 23rd December 1671[282]. Later residents in Suffolk Street were the Earl of Kent and Viscount Conway in 1677[283], and the Earl of Suffolk, who wrote from Suffolk Street in 1714[284]. The residence of the Earls of Suffolk here, combined with their leasehold interest in the land[285], probably accounts for Strype’s inaccurate statement that the street was “built on the ground where stood a large house belonging to the Earl of Suffolk.” Hatton in 1708 described Great Suffolk Street as “a pleasant street.” Later in the eighteenth century it came, according to Horace Walpole, to be “known for the residence of foreigners.” Besides Suffolk Buildings the Close of Suffolk land included the site of James Street (now Orange Street) on the north. An ancient tablet, on the wall of Messrs Simpkin, Marshall & Co.’s building, bears the inscription and date “James Street, 1673.” This date suggests that it was laid out at the same time as Panton Street[286]. In the grant to the Earl of St Albans in 1662 Suffolk Stable Yard was described as containing three acres. It is possible that the north part of the Close had been separated and passed into other hands. If so the separation must have been after 1651, when the grounds of Shaver’s Hall were described as bounded south by the Earl of Suffolk’s brick wall. The site of James Street cannot have been included in Shaver’s Hall, the area of which (three and a half acres) was the same as that of Scavenger’s Close. Strype describes James Street as “of chief note for its tennis-courts which take up the south side of the street, the north side being but ordinarily inhabited.” The James Street Tennis-Court has commonly been identified with the court at Shaver’s Hall. But for the reasons given here and above[287] that identification cannot be maintained. Phil Porter writing in 1686 implies clearly that the Shaver’s Hall Court no longer existed, whereas the James Street Court lasted for nearly two centuries afterwards. The James Street tennis-courts (there were originally two) were probably built as the tablet indicates in 1673. James Street is first mentioned in the Ratebooks in 1675, when Benedict Ifield paid 2_l._ 10_s._ for the tennis-court, but was said to be overrated. Ifield appears as paying smaller sums down to 1679; but after that year there is a gap till 1686, when Jane Davis was rated at 30_s._ for the tennis-court. Though the courts were still in use when Strype wrote, there was a decline in the popularity of the game during the early part of the eighteenth century. From 1737 to 1740 Punch’s Theatre is described as “at the Old Tennis Court in St James near the Haymarket.” From 1741 onwards the New Theatre was established in James Street, Haymarket[288]. It seems probable that these two theatres were conducted continuously in one of the tennis-courts, which was afterwards used for storing the scenery of the King’s Theatre or Opera House. But about 1780, when the James Street Court was kept by John Mucklow, the playing of tennis revived. After that the James Street Court (there was now only one) was the headquarters of tennis in England till 1866, when it was dismantled. The stone-floor, which was of peculiar excellence, and according to tradition made of sandstone brought specially from Germany, was sold to the Earl of Warwick, who intended to relay it at Warwick Castle; but the stone was found to be worn too thin for further use. The benches of the dedans were removed to the Merton Street Court at Oxford where they still are. The mutilated remains of the building survived till 1886, when it was reconstructed, though the lower part of the old walls was retained and externally the building preserves something of its original appearance. The James Street tennis-court was inaccurately styled “The Royal,” from a legend that Charles II played there[289]. [Illustration: THE JAMES STREET TENNIS-COURT From a drawing by T. H. Shepherd in 1850] § 14. THE HAYMARKET The Haymarket first appears as a street in the Ratebooks for 1657, when 35 tenements are given under “Downe the Haymarket and in the Pall Mall”; there is a similar entry in 1658, when other houses are described as “from the Haymarket westwards.” Elsewhere the earliest mention of it as a street seems to be in March 1661, when Colonel Edward Harley had a horse standing “at Mr Baxter’s stable in the Haymarket neer Peccadilly.”[290] In the following year on 31st July Evelyn “sat with the Commissioners about reforming buildings and streets of London, and we ordered the paving of the Haymarket and about Piquidillo.”[291] References to the market, which is said to date from the reign of Elizabeth, occur much earlier. Sir John Suckling wrote before 1642 in his _Ballad upon a Wedding_: At Charing Cross, hard by the way Where we thou knowst do sell our hay. In August 1660 Robert Kilvert (presumably Mary Baker’s tenant at Piccadilly) petitioned to be granted the office of weigher of hay and straw at Charing Cross market[292]. In April 1663 the Earl of St Albans obtained a grant of a cattle-market to be held in Haymarket twice a week[293]. In April 1681 it was related that a market had been kept for many years past every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday in the Haymarket (being the high road from the Mews to Piccadilly). Under an Act of Parliament the profits had been settled to be used for the paving and repair of the street, but the Act having expired there was no longer any provision for cleaning and repair, and the street was in consequence run very much to decay and was like to become impassable. A grant of the market was then made to Edward Warcup on condition that he kept the street paved and clean[294]. The market was disliked by the wealthier residents, and a few months later Henry Coventry made formal objection to the grant[295]. However, the market still continued, and was regulated under further Acts of Parliament in 1690 and 1697, when at length the street was paved. Strype speaks of the market as making the street of good account. The history of Shaver’s Hall and of Suffolk Buildings shows that the east side of the Haymarket was built early in the reign of Charles II. The west side was built about the same time as part of the development of St James’s Field for building. The progress of building is indicated by the references to the provision of a water-supply for Piccadilly, St James’s Field, Haymarket and Suffolk Buildings in 1664 and 1665[296]. In Morden and Lea’s map in 1682 the line of houses on the east side is broken only at the north corner which was still occupied by Henry Coventry’s garden. The west side was then fully built. The Haymarket was from the first chiefly a business street with numerous inns and houses of entertainment, especially on the west side. Prominent amongst the inns on the east side was the King’s Head, which occurs in 1675 and is described by Strype as “a large place for stabling and coaches.” Next above the King’s Head at the corner of James Street was Paulet’s Ordinary, in Strype’s time “much resorted to by nobility and gentry.” On the other side of the street were The Phenix a little above the south corner and the Nag’s Head by Norris Street; in 1659 there is reference in the Ratebook to “the stile by the Nag’s Head in the Haymarket.” But there were also some private residents. The Earl of Lincoln had a house in the Haymarket in 1658, and Lady Fitzhardinge one on the east side in 1669. Much later the Duchess of Devonshire lived here in 1710, Sir William Wyndham in 1711 and the Duke of Dorset in 1716. Hatton writes with reference to The Phenix: “Here is now building a very strong and large theatre to be called the Queen’s Theatre.” This note must, however, have been written long before the date of publication; for we know from other sources that the first stone of the theatre was laid in 1703 and that the first performance was given on 9th April 1705 by Betterton and his company in Dryden’s _Indian Emperor_. The architect of the Queen’s Theatre was Sir John Vanbrugh, who describes it as to be built “on the second stable yard going up the Haymarket.” The Queen’s Theatre afterwards became the Opera House. The original building was burnt down in 1789, and its successor in 1867. The third building was demolished when the Carlton Hotel and His Majesty’s Theatre were built. On the opposite side of the street another theatre was built on the site of the King’s Head and opened on 29th December 1720 by a company of French comedians. Hence it was known as the French or Little Theatre[297]. Seymour, writing in 1735, states that “it is at present taken up by a pack of French strollers, who are likewise much caressed and followed by persons of the greatest quality. So much do we admire at this time everything that is foreign.”[298] The Little Theatre was rebuilt in 1820 on an adjoining site as the Theatre Royal, though now more commonly called the Haymarket. § 15. ST JAMES’S SQUARE AND ITS NEIGHBOURHOOD The Plan of 1585 includes a considerable part of the north-east corner of St James’s Field, but since it lay outside the purpose of the lawsuit no detail is given. The history of the building of St James’s Square and its neighbourhood has been told at length by Mr Wheatley and Mr Arthur Dasent, and here it is not necessary to give more than a brief summary. In 1654 one Hugh Woodward had purchased St James’s Field from the Parliamentary Commissioners intending to dig and burn bricks with a view to building there, and meantime let off part for a laystall. Against this the parishioners objected, and in spite of Woodward’s protests a stay of the new building in St James’s Field was ordered in August 1656[299]. After the Restoration Henry Jermyn, Earl of St Albans, obtained in May 1662 confirmation for a term of 60 years of a lease granted to him by the Queen-Mother of 45 acres in Pall Mall Field (as the field was at that time called), with licence to build houses and streets; the confirmation also included the ground or close called Suffolk Stable Yard[300]. The development of the land was at once commenced; but St Albans and his coadjutors, chief amongst whom were John Harvey, John Coell and Thomas Clarges, soon experienced difficulties. On 14th August 1663 the Earl of St Albans presented a petition to the King showing that whereas the beauty of this great town and the convenience of the Court are defective in point of houses fit for the dwellings of noblemen and persons of quality, and that your Majesty hath thought fit for some remedy to appoint that the Place of St James’s Field should be built in great and good houses, it is represented that unless your Majesty be pleased to grant the inheritance of the ground whereon some 13 or 14 houses that will compose the said place are to stand, it will be very hard to attain the end proposed, for that men will not build palaces upon any term but that of inheritance[301]. It was, however, only after prolonged delay that on 1st April 1665 the Earl of St Albans obtained what he desired. He then allotted plots to various persons, chief amongst whom were the Lords Arlington, Belasyse and Halifax. The Earl of St Albans’ own house was at the south-east corner, and now forms part of Norfolk House. The name of Piazza which was at first adopted soon gave way to the more familiar Square; but it is not till 1676 that St James’s Square appears as a whole in the Ratebooks. Even then the south side was still formed by the backs of the houses in Pall Mall and there were some gaps on the other sides. St James’s Square was built as a fashionable place of residence, a characteristic of which the changes of the last fifty years have not entirely deprived it. Whilst the erection of the Square was the central feature of the design, it formed only a part of a much more extensive scheme. Between St James’s Square and the Haymarket a market-place was provided in 1664, which Hatton in 1708 describes as “the greatest market at this end of the town for butchers and poulterers.” The Market-Place was approached from the south by St Albans Street, which led across Charles Street from Pall Mall. On the north it was bounded by Jermyn Street, and on the east a small street called Norris Street gave access to the Haymarket. Norris Street was formed at the point where in the Plan of 1585 a stile is shown, nearly opposite to the stile and footpath which became Panton Street. St James’s Market and St Albans Street were swept away when Waterloo Place and Regent Street were formed between 1813 and 1820. On the east of the Haymarket the original laying out of Great and Little Suffolk Street in 1663 and 1664 must have formed part of the design of St Albans and his associates. On the north of the Square York Street led into Jermyn Street, which was also called Great Jermyn Street, and sometimes in error Germain or German Street. The original Jermyn Street began at St James’s Street but stopped short at the east end of the market. The western portion of the Earl of St Albans’ estate between the Square and St James’s Street does not fall within the area covered by the Plan. The Market-Place, Jermyn Street, Charles Street and King Street were the first built. The Ratebook for 1663 gives houses in St James’s Field in the Market-Place. Pepys on 2nd September 1663 refers to “the building of St James’s by my Lord St Albans, which is now about and which the City I perceive stomach highly but dare not oppose it.” On 1st April 1666 he went “all up and down my Lord St Albans his new building and market-house, and the tavern under the market-house, looking to and again into every place of building.”[302] Jermyn Street was built in 1667 and amongst its early residents were the Duchess of Richmond, John Churchill afterwards Duke of Marlborough, and Henry Sidney, Earl of Romney. Charles Street like Jermyn Street was a fashionable place of residence; Lord Clifford and the Earl of Oxford were amongst the first to dwell here, though both afterwards moved into the Square. The Earl of St Albans’ rent roll for 1676 includes many houses in all the streets, and shows that his property extended not only to Piccadilly but across that street to the houses built on the Round Rundles or Ringles[303]. St James’s Church was built in 1684-85 from the designs of Sir Christopher Wren, though the steeple was an addition made for reasons of economy on a design by a builder called Wilcox. Evelyn on 7th December 1684 “went to see the new church at St James’s, elegantly built.” What he admired was clearly the fine interior, with its carving by Grinling Gibbons. The church was consecrated on 13th July 1685, and at the same time a separate parish formed out of that of St Martin-in-the-Fields was made. The Rectory was built soon after. [Illustration: ST JAMES’S SQUARE From an engraving by Sutton Nicholls] § 16. THE LATER PICCADILLY From the history of St James’s Square we turn naturally to that of Piccadilly in its later signification. The name Piccadilly was, as we have seen, in the first instance attached in jest to Robert Baker’s range of houses extending up the east side of Windmill Street, whence it came to be applied generally to the neighbouring district and more particularly to the gaming-house and ordinary at Shaver’s Hall[304]. In none of these uses did it apply to any part of the main street now called Piccadilly. This roadway, which anciently was called “the way to Reading,” or “the way from Colbroke,” appears in Faithorne’s map in 1658 as the way “from Knightsbridge unto Piccadilly Hall.” The modern street was originally in 1663 called Portugal Street in honour of Catherine of Braganza, the Queen of Charles II. Portugal Street appears in the Ratebooks in 1664 and Piccadilly Street in 1673. But even as a street Piccadilly was at first the name of only that part to the east of Swallow Street; Hatton defines it as “between Coventry Street or the end of the Haymarket and Portugal Street, length 280 yards.” In 1685 St James’s Church is described as fronting “towards Piccadilly Street _alias_ Portugal Street.” Portugal Street remained the official name for many years, though it was superseded by Piccadilly in popular use long before. In Rocque’s map the whole street is marked Piccadilly. There must have been some extension of building in the neighbourhood of Piccadilly before the Restoration, for Howell writes in his _Londinopolis_[305] in 1657 of “Pickadilly, full of fair houses roundabout.” So in 1658 Brilliana Stanley, wife of James Stanley, and her brother Col. Edward Harley both had lodgings at Pickadilly[306]. In February 1661 there is mention of meetings of Fifth Monarchy men held two or three times a week at the Maiden Head Tavern at Piccadilly[307]. But owing to the vague use of the name till this time we cannot be certain of the exact meaning of these references. However, the Ratebook for 1658 refers to houses “from the Haymarket, westwards,” which must have been in the later Piccadilly Street. Jonas Moore in 1662 also shows some houses at the north-west corner of Piccadilly and the Haymarket. On the north of Piccadilly houses were springing up to the west of Windmill Street[308]. In 1650 Windmill Street was still represented only by a footpath leading to the Windmill. In that year a Survey was made of the land and houses on the west side of the path; there were six poor and mean buildings each with two rooms, and only one was rented at as much as £7. 10_s._ The Windmill itself was fitted with staves, and strongly built of brick and covered with tile; it had lofts commodiously divided for corn. The dwelling-house was, however, old and decayed, consisting of a cellar with three rooms over it, one above the other. The description of the land on which these houses and the Mill stood is of service for the explanation of the Plan: All which said two acres of pasture ground and the Windmill, and all those tenements together with the said Mill are bounded with the land of Mr Pulteney north and west and with a footpath leading from Peckadilly towards the Windmill, east, and a small conduit close belonging to Sir Henry Ven, south[309]. This agrees well with the Plan of 1585 for the piece of land containing the Windmill, which is there marked as “Mr Wilson’s part” with an area of over two acres. There is, however, nothing in the Plan to represent the small Conduit Close. But that close is no doubt “the close called the Conduit Close,” which Robert Baker bequeathed for his unborn child in 1623. The St Martin’s Ratebook for 1652 gives Sir Harry Vane as paying Lammas money for one acre of land at Piccadilly. In 1655 Mr James Supple paid Lammas for the land that was formerly Sir Harry Vane’s, and so continues to do in later years. In 1664 Conduit Court appears in the Ratebook, and is no doubt identical with the Supples Buildings which are mentioned in 1671; it is again called Conduit Court in 1675. Hatton gives “Conde Court on the south-west side of Windmill Street near Piccadilly.” Strype describes Conde Court as “very inconsiderable for building or inhabitants” and in his map shows it as a little distance up the west side of Windmill Street. It will be observed that in this Survey the name Piccadilly is applied to the street or locality at the south end of Windmill Street. When Piccadilly was taken for the name of a street, it began at this point; thus the shop at the south-west corner of Great Windmill Street is still correctly called No. 1 Piccadilly. Another Survey of the same date describes “the severall tenements situate at a place called Pickadilly.”[310] Here there are given eight tenements, of which the first seven are small, not dissimilar to those on the west side of the Windmill path; the fact that two of them had cowhouses may furnish some indication of the character of their occupants; they may perhaps have been situated on the south side of the same plot of land facing the road. The eighth tenement is of greater interest; it is described as: a tenement strongly built with brick walls and covered with tile, consisting of two rooms below stairs and two rooms above stairs, and two garrets over the same; also adjoining to the said house one barn strongly built with brick and covered with tile, 30 foot of assize in length and 19 feet in breadth. There were also a hayloft, coach-house and stable, together with a garden, described as of 411 feet of assize (meaning no doubt its whole perimeter) which was encompassed with a brick wall. The bounds of this last tenement are given as the roads leading from Pickadilly to Tyburn Road on the north, and the Brainford (Brentford) Road on the south. It was assessed at £15 and was then in the occupation of one Samuel Morris. This tenement clearly occupied the small triangular plot at the angle where Shrug Lane and the Colnbrook Road meet, the perimeter of which as shown on the Plan agrees closely with that given in the Survey. On its west side was a small close called in the Plan “Round Ringill.” In another place[311] the eastern boundary of “The Round Rundell” is given as a garden belonging to Lady Hutton. Round Ringill and the Round Rundell are obviously the same; whether the actual occupant was Samuel Morris or Lady Hutton does not appear. The site of Lady Hutton’s house and garden is now covered by Piccadilly Circus. The Round Ringill[312] in 1585 was in the occupation of Mr Pulteney. It then had on its western side a small close of Abingdon land, which was subsequently included in it. In 1650 it is described, under the name of the Round Rundell, as two and a quarter acres of pasture bounded by Swallow Close on the west, the road from Pickadilly to the Tyburn Road on the north, the Brainford Road on the south and Lady Hutton’s garden on the east[313]. The western boundary was the present Air Street, which appears in the Ratebooks as early as 1658, when it was the most westerly street in London. In the Rent Roll of the Earl of St Albans in 1676 a number of houses are given as situated in Round Rundles and held by leases granted between 1661 and 1663; there were seven in Ayre (or Air) Street, seven in Castle Street (which turned east out of Air Street), five in Piccadilly and five in Shugg Lane; 13 others are described as in Piccadilly and Shugg Lane. There would appear to have been still some open pieces of ground on the Piccadilly front. Two small pieces of ground in Round Rundell were called the Doghovell in 1661[314]. The full development of this end of Piccadilly was due to the Earl of St Albans. In 1658 the Ratebook has mention of houses “from the end of the Haymarket westwards”; this should mean houses on the south side of Piccadilly[315]. These may be some of the houses “from the Poet’s Head to the Haymarket,” which are mentioned in 1666. The Poet’s Head was a house the exact site of which cannot be identified; but it was perhaps a little to the east of Eagle Passage, since Salters Court and Fleece Yard appear to have been between the Poet’s Head and the Haymarket. Better known is the White Bear Inn, which was on the site of the Criterion and was afterwards a great coaching inn; it is mentioned in 1685, and is shown on Rocque’s map. The whole south side of the street as far as St James’s was built before 1682; but there is nothing in its history to call for notice here. [Illustration: THE WHITE BEAR INN, PICCADILLY From a drawing by T. H. Shepherd in 1850] The greater interest of the early history of Piccadilly belongs to the lands on its north side and the large houses which were erected on them in the latter part of the seventeenth century. On the west side of the Abingdon land adjoining Round Ringill lay in 1585 a close occupied by Widow Golightly. In 1650 this was described as a pasture of four acres two roods called Swallow Close, bounded by Stone Conduit Close west, Round Rundle east, the Brainford Road south, and Shrug Lane north[316]. The name Swallow Close was no doubt derived from Thomas Swallow, who about 1540 held five acres of pasture in the parish of St Margaret which had been purchased by the King from Thomas Hobson and were of the yearly value of 7_s._ 6_d._[317] This is confirmed by the statement that in 1585 Thomas Golightly paid 7_s._ 6_d._ rent for land formerly in the tenure of Thomas Swallow, which sometime belonged to Thomas Hobson[318]. The close was included in the grant to Eldred and Whitmore in 1610[319] as five acres of pasture in St Martin’s parish formerly in the tenure of Thomas Swallow and now of Thomas Garland, abutting east on a close of pasture in the occupation of one Robinson, south on the highway from the Mews to “le Stonebridge”[320] in the said highway, and north on another close of pasture. Together with Swallow Close, Eldred and Whitmore held the Round Rundles under a lease which expired in March 1670. Their lease was acquired by Michael Pulteney, who in 1619 sold his term in Swallow Close to Edmund Hopper, whose daughter Margaret Hopper held it in 1650[321]. There is reference in the minutes of the Vestry of St Martin to the Lammas money of Swallow Field, and Swallow Close is referred to in the grant to the Earl of Clarendon in 1664. When Swallow Close was laid out for building the name of its sixteenth century owner was given to the principal street; Swallow Street is first mentioned in the Ratebooks in 1671. The name Swallow Street was ultimately extended northwards for a street which ran from Piccadilly to Oxford Street. The northern part, which is now absorbed in Regent Street, was called Great Swallow Street, whilst the southern end was called Little Swallow Street. The present Swallow Street represents the original part. The north side of Swallow Close is marked approximately by Vigo Street, this part of which was originally Glasshouse Street. The eastern boundary was at Air Street, and the western at Sackville Street. Sackville Street is first mentioned in the Ratebooks in 1679; but it is called Chip Street by Ogilby[322] in 1675, and in Morden and Lea’s map is marked Ship Yard[323]. The later name may be due to a Captain Sackville who was living here in 1676. The whole area of Swallow Close had been built over by 1682. Murrell’s Yard and Naked Boy Alley which opened out of Piccadilly nearly opposite St James’s Church appear in the Ratebook for 1671. On the west of Swallow Close lay a larger piece of land called Stone Conduit Close. Though that name does not appear in the legal proceedings in 1585, “a Conduit Head” is shown on the Plan as standing by the roadside near the centre of the Close[324]. Stone Conduit Close was part of the Abingdon Lands. The bounds were given in 1585 as the way to Colbroke on the south, the farm land of St James’s on the west, Widow Golightly (Swallow Close) on the east, and land of Mr Wilson on the north. The area of the Close was a little under nine acres[325]. Stone Conduit Close was not then in question. We have in consequence no more of its early history than that after its acquisition by Henry VIII it was leased successively to George Sutton and John Walgrave. Walgrave’s lease which expired in 1595 passed to his daughter’s husband James Bristow. It was, however, presumably included in the lease granted in 1610 by James I to Eldred and Whitmore of all the lands which formerly belonged to Abingdon Abbey and were late in the tenure of George Sutton. Eldred and Whitmore at once assigned their interest to Michael Pulteney, whose lease expired in March 1670[326]. However, before that date the Close was included in the grant made to the Earl of Clarendon on 23rd August 1664[327]. Clarendon acquired under the grant much more land than he required for his own use and he at once sold Stone Conduit Close to Richard Boyle, Earl of Cork and Burlington. On the greater part of the site a house was built for Burlington by Sir John Denham, whom Evelyn described as a better poet than architect. Denham held the office of Surveyor-General, and not improbably his deputy John Webb was in reality responsible for the house. However, Pepys referring to the building being in progress in February 1664/5 speaks of it as for Sir John Denham[328]. The Earl of Burlington is alleged to have chosen the site because he was determined to have no building beyond him. This has sometimes been interpreted to mean that Burlington House was the farthest west; in that form the story would be manifestly absurd since Clarendon House and Berkeley House were already in progress. What the Earl had in mind was no doubt the open ground on the north side, in reference to which Strype writes “the spacious garden behind faces the fields and from thence receives a fresh and wholesome air.”[329] Burlington House was first rated to the poor (at £4 a year) in 1668. The House then erected was a plain building of red brick, which in 1718 was remodelled under the direction of the third Earl of Burlington, who was himself an amateur architect of distinction. This was the splendid building which Gay eulogised[330]: Beauty within: without, proportion reigns. A malicious wit, said to be Lord Hervey, not without some reason described it as: Possessed of one great hall of state Without a room to sleep or eat. Burlington House was the London residence of the two lines of earls of the Boyle and Cavendish families till 1854, when it was purchased by the Government, though not altered for its present purposes till 1867-74. The magnificent colonnade designed by the third Earl was then removed; but some features of his house survive in the existing quadrangle and in part of the rooms of the Royal Academy which still retain their original decoration. The buildings of the Civil Service Commission in the rear occupy the site of the gardens, which extended to Vigo Street[331]. [Illustration: OLD BURLINGTON HOUSE IN 1707 From an engraving by J. Kip after a drawing by L. Knyff] A strip of land on the east side of Stone Conduit Close, not being needed for Burlington House, was sold, and on it were erected several houses[332]. The two most important were those of Sir Thomas Clarges and Lord Townshend, which are shown by Morden and Lea as adjoining one another immediately east of Burlington House with open courtyards towards the street. Of the others Sir William Petty, ancestor of the Marquis of Lansdowne, had a house at the corner of Sackville Street, and Verrio the painter lived next door but one to him in 1675. Clarges, who was a politician of some notoriety and an associate of the Earl of St Albans in his building schemes, did not live here himself; his house was for a time occupied by the Earl of Rochester, and was afterwards till 1708 the Venetian embassy. Lord Townshend’s house was occupied by Dorothy, Lady Stanhope, from 1676 to 1682. Afterwards it was purchased by Charles Spencer, third Earl of Sunderland, who in 1709 bought the house that had belonged to Sir Thomas Clarges and threw the two together. Through a succession of owners the enlarged house passed in 1763 to Henry Fox, first Lord Holland. Fox sold it in 1770 to the first Viscount Melbourne, by whom it was rebuilt from the designs of Sir William Chambers and was renamed Melbourne House. When Melbourne in 1794 exchanged it for a house in Whitehall with Frederick, Duke of York and Albany, second son of George III, the name was again changed to York House. After some years the Duke disposed of it to Alexander Copland, a builder, by whom in 1803 it was converted into Albany Chambers. Immediately west of Stone Conduit Close was a piece of pasture called Pennyless Bank, the eastern part of which appears on the Plan of 1585 as “The Farme land of St James: Mr Poultney.” Pennyless Bank was the central portion of the land granted to the Earl of Clarendon in 1664, when it was described as parcel of the Manor of St James and estimated to contain nine and a half acres. Its north side was on a line between Hay Hill and Burlington Gardens[333]. Here Clarendon built his own house; and on 15th October 1664 Evelyn went with him to project the gardens. On 20th February 1665 Pepys rode with Sir J. Minnes “unto the beginning of my Lord Chancellor’s new house near St James’s; which common people have already called Dunkirke-house from their opinion of his having a good bribe for the selling of that town. And very noble I believe it will be.” A year later, having heard so much of the house from Evelyn, Pepys went to view it again: “indeed it is the finest pile I ever did see in my life and will be a glorious house.” He was so charmed with it that during the next few weeks he several times took friends to see it. On 4th February 1666 he accompanied Thomas Hill there and “went with trouble up to the top of it, and there is there the noblest prospect that ever I saw in my life, Greenwich being nothing to it; in every thing it is a beautiful house and most strongly built.” Evelyn relates that on 28th November 1666 he went to see Clarendon House “now almost finished, a goodly pile to see, but has many defects as to architecture, yet placed most gracefully.” [Illustration: CLARENDON OR ALBEMARLE HOUSE From an engraving by W. Skilman after a drawing by J. Spilbergh] Clarendon resided but small time in his splendid house. On the eve of his fall in June 1667 Pepys writes how some rude people had been at my Lord Chancellor’s, “where they have cut down the trees before his house and broke his windows, and a gibbet either set up before or painted upon his gate, and these three words writ: Three sights to be seen, Dunkirk, Tangier and a barren Queen.” The building of this costly house, which Evelyn, in a letter to Clarendon’s son, described as “without hyperbole the best contrived, most useful, graceful, magnificent house in England,” did much to increase Clarendon’s unpopularity. Clarendon himself thought that it contributed more than anything to that gust of envy which caused his downfall. Evelyn paid a farewell visit on 9th December 1667, when he found Clarendon sitting in his gout wheeled-chair to see the gates set up towards the north and the fields[334]. After Clarendon’s exile his house was let for a time to the Duke of Ormonde, who was residing there in 1670. In the end his heirs sold it to Christopher Monk, second Duke of Albemarle, for £25,000, or half what it had cost. Albemarle who acquired it in 1675 was compelled within a few years to sell it in order to make good the prodigious wasting of his estate by his luxurious extravagance. On 23rd February 1681/2 Luttrell wrote that the house was reported to be sold and that the proprietors intended to build a stately square equal to that at St James’s[335]. On 18th September 1683 Evelyn “walked to survey the sad demolition of Clarendon House.” It had been sold to the highest bidder, and says Evelyn “fell to certain rich bankers and mechanics, who gave for it and the ground about it £35,000; they design a new town, as it were, and a most magnificent piazza.”[336] The chief mover in this building speculation was Sir Thomas Bond, who had lent money to Charles II when in exile and been Controller to Queen Henrietta Maria. Bond gave his name to the principal street that was planned on the site of Clarendon House; but when he died in 1685 the work had made little progress. There were in that year but seven houses on the west side of the street, which was then called Albemarle Buildings; the east side was finished a little later[337]. The whole building scheme long hung incomplete. Strype writes: The undertakers were not able to finish so great a work and made mortgages and so entangled the title that it is not to this day finished and God knows when it will. So that it lieth like the ruins of Troy, some having only the foundations begun, others carried up to the roofs and others covered, but none of the inside work done. Yet those houses which are towards Piccadilly meet with tenants. In this building which takes the general name of Albemarle Buildings are three streets, viz. Bond Street; ... Albemarle Street in the midst which fronts St James’s Street; Dover Street, the best of all for buildings and hath the most finished and inhabited houses for gentry, especially the west side; Stafford Street, which butts against Bond Street and Dover Street and crosseth Albemarle Street.[338] A comparison of the Plan with Rocque’s map will show how closely the line of Bond Street followed the east side of Stone Conduit Close and of the Close to the north of it. The original street stopped short where the Trinity Chapel stood just north of what is now Burlington Gardens. Hatton gives its length as 220 yards, and this is the part now called Old Bond Street. Bond Street soon became a favourite residential quarter and is described by Hatton in 1708 as “a fine new street mostly inhabited by nobility and gentry.” The extension by New Bond Street to Oxford Street was not completed till 1721 and will be described later[339]. Albemarle Street was of course called after the Duke. Hatton refers to it as “a street of excellent quality.” Dover Street, which was also “mostly inhabited by gentry,” owes its name to Henry Jermyn, Earl of Dover and nephew of the Earl of St Albans, who was living here on the east side of the street in 1686. At a later time Dover House was on the west side at the north end. In 1699 John Evelyn went to live in a house on the west side which had belonged to his son[340]. As Strype states the north end of Albemarle Buildings long lay unfinished. Here, to the north of what had been Clarendon’s gardens on a piece of ground which had been part of Conduit Meadow, it was originally intended to form a square with a street 50 feet wide on the south side leading up to the old Trinity Chapel[341]. But the Duke of Grafton, the Earl of Grantham, Earl Poulett and Mr Wallop, who had houses at the north ends of Bond Street, Albemarle Street and Dover Street, desiring to preserve their prospect, purchased this land and the proposed roadway on the south and threw most of it into their gardens. Albemarle Street and Dover Street were then continued northwards, whilst a fresh roadway was made at the north end[342]. The Inquisition for this purpose was held in October 1708[343], but the alterations may have been made somewhat later. The original name of the road made at the extreme north end of Albemarle Buildings was at first Albemarle Row. But it was at one time called Ducking Pond Row, and in Rocque’s map of 1746 appears as Evans Row. The gardens of the four houses occupied by the Duke of Grafton and his neighbours are shown clearly in that map. The Duke’s house was at the Bond Street corner, and Evans Row when completely built over was renamed Grafton Street. At the west end of Evans Row, on the north side of Hay Hill and between the Aybrook (or Tyburn) and Dover Street, was a small triangular piece of ground belonging to Conduit Meadow, on which Albemarle Mews were built. Though the Plan of 1585 does not include the whole of the site of Pennyless Bank, on the Piccadilly front it extends a little farther west. Here there was a close called Stonebridge Close, which in 1650 was described as containing 11 acres. It had been included in the grant to Clarendon in 1664, but like Stone Conduit Close was at once sold, the conveyances being dated only a day later than the grant. The northern boundary was then given as a messuage in the occupation of John Emblyn, and the western boundary as a little brook--the Aybrook or Tyburn. This brook was crossed at the Piccadilly end, a little to the east of Brick Street, by the Stone Bridge from which the Close was named. Stonebridge Close was sold in two portions to Lord Berkeley of Stratton and Sir William Pulteney. Lord Berkeley had the eastern part on which he at once began the building of another fine house, designed by Hugh May. Evelyn went to dine with him there on 25th July and again on 25th September 1672, in his new house, or rather palace. I am assured it stood him in near 30000_l._ It is very well built and has many noble rooms, but they are not very convenient.... The forecourt is noble, so are the stables; and above all the gardens, which are incomparable by reason of the inequality of the ground and a pretty piscina. The holly hedges on the terrace I advised the planting of. The gardens extended over the ground now occupied by Lansdowne House and Berkeley Square. After Lord Berkeley’s death his widow in 1684 laid out a part of the gardens to make Berkeley Street and Stratton Street. Only as much of the garden as the breadth of the house was reserved. This was done under the direction of Evelyn, who, though he deplored that so sweet a place should be so much straitened, found excuse for Lady Berkeley in the excessive price which would produce £1000 a year in ground rents[344]. The Princess Anne lived at Berkeley House for a short time in 1695. But early in 1697 it was purchased by the first Duke of Devonshire and became Devonshire House. The original Berkeley House was burnt down in 1733, when the familiar building that remained the London home of the Cavendish family till 1923 was erected from the designs of William Kent. The high brick wall which shut it off from Piccadilly was a survival of the original seventeenth century house. The part of Stonebridge Close which was acquired by Sir William Pulteney became in the eighteenth century the site of Bath House; but since it lay completely outside the Plan we are not concerned with it here. § 17. COLONEL PANTON’S BUILDINGS IN WINDMILL FIELD We must now return east to the land which lay between Robert Baker’s Piccadilly and Hedge Lane. Here on the east side of the narrow strip which belonged to Widow Golightly the Plan shows a close of Thomas Wilson’s land (No. 5), which contained somewhat over one acre. Beyond it on the east was a close of Burton Lazar land (No. 2), which contained not quite four acres[345]. This latter close had been in the tenure of Ralph Martin and George Sutton. Afterwards it was included in the grants made to John Walgrave and Ralph Staverton, and so came into the possession of James Bristow[346]. Francis Bristow in 1606 obtained an extension of his lease for forty years from that date[347]. The first close, as part of Wilson’s holding, was presumably part of the Mercers Lands, though that is not certain. The two pieces of land seem to have been closely connected. In the minutes of the Vestry of St Martin’s for 1549, in a presentment of common lands enclosed since the first year of Henry VIII, there appears the following statement: “There is a close called the leastall being two acres: and at the end of that close there is a meadow in the tenure of William Deport [Depon] by estimation three acres, being now enclosed which ought to be common when the crop is away.”[348] This appears to be the same as the land described in a Survey in 1650 as A parcell of ground called the Leastall bounded by Mrs Baker’s land, west, and the Lane leading from Charing Cross to Colman Hedge Lane, east, and abutting on the land of Mr Poultney north and the lane leading from the Military Yard into Brainford road, south. 5 acres 2 roods[349]. The two closes together according to the Plan contained over five acres one rood, so that the area given is approximately correct; and the western boundary would be described properly as Mrs Baker’s land, though as suggested above[350] Mary Baker may have acquired some land to the east of that which her husband purchased of the Garlands. The Leastall or Laystall Close was held in 1650 under a lease for 31 years from the expiration of Bristow’s lease in 1646, which had been granted on 6th April 1627 to James Elliott and William Loring, on the recommendation of the Earl of Monmouth. After Colonel Thomas Panton acquired the site of Shaver’s Hall in 1664 he appears also to have purchased not only the land on the north of Coventry Street which had belonged to Mary Baker, but also the land between that and Colman Hedge Lane. In 1671 he obtained licence to build and furnish houses in continuation of Windmill Street from the upper end of the Haymarket to the highway leading from Soe Hoe to Ayre Street and Paddington; on the east corner towards Haymarket about 100 feet in front; on the same side about 200 feet in front opposite Windmill Yard; and to build a short street leading out of Windmill Street opposite Windmill Yard towards St Giles; and on the west side of Windmill Street[351]. The streets as actually laid out do not seem to have followed exactly the lines proposed. It is, however, clear that Panton was proposing to deal with the whole block between Windmill Street and Colman Hedge Lane. Windmill Street was afterwards called Great Windmill Street to distinguish it from its northern continuation Little Windmill Street; the latter is now Lexington Street. The highway from Soe Hoe must mean a roadway which became Little Pulteney Street and Brewer Street. Windmill Yard is described by Hatton as on the south-west side of Windmill Street near Piccadilly. The short street opposite to the yard does not seem to have been built except in so far as it is represented by Arch or Archer Street. Panton also laid out Panton Passage and Square, later called Arundel Street (after his daughter’s husband, Henry 5th Lord Arundell of Wardour[352]), and also Rupert Street. Arundel Street was built over in 1923. On the east of Colonel Panton’s land was Colman Hedge Lane, this portion of which was renamed Princes Street. In the Ratebooks of St Martin’s “Colonel Panton’s tenements” are mentioned in 1672, and under “Colonel Panton’s Buildings” in 1673 there appear houses on the Haymarket side, the north side of Panton Street and Hedge Lane, and also in Arundel Street. In 1675 we get houses on the east side of Windmill Street, in Arch Street, by the Laystall, and in “Panton Street by the Laystall.” In this year there also appear houses on the south side of Panton Street and in Oxenden Street. In 1677 there is mention of “Vesies Garden” and Rupert Street[353]. Two years later “Pheazes Garden” and Rupert Street are followed for the first time by Princes Street. Richmond Street is first mentioned in 1678. Arch Street is still so called by Hatton in 1708, but is Orchard Street in Strype and Archer Street in Rocque’s map. “Vesies Garden” and “Panton Street by the Laystall” may perhaps represent Panton Square and Passage, or possibly Rupert Street was at first called provisionally “Panton Street by the Laystall.” Rupert Street was certainly named after Prince Rupert. It has been alleged that Princes Street owed its name to the traditional association of Prince Henry with the Military Garden[354]. This does not seem very probable, and it is more likely that together with Rupert Street it commemorated Prince Rupert. The name Princes Street applied to that part of Colman Hedge Lane between Coventry Street and Compton Street; thus its whole length lay along Colonel Panton’s land but only in the central part adjoined the Military Garden. In Morden and Lea’s map this piece of the street is included in Whitcomb Street. But it is given as Princes Street by Hatton and Rocque. In 1880 it was included in Wardour Street. Though the entries in the Ratebooks are not so full as might be desired they enable us to trace the development of Colonel Panton’s building scheme between 1672 and 1680. § 18. THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF GOLDEN SQUARE The Laystall Close, which Col. Panton had acquired and developed, was bounded on the north in 1650 by the land of Mr Poultney. In 1585 there had been a strip of Abingdon Land here, which adjoined land then held by Thomas Poultney or Pulteney as farmer of St James. In 1624 Thomas Garland described the land sold to Robert Baker as bounded on the north by the land of St James[355]. It is possible that Thomas Pulteney or his heirs had acquired the piece of Abingdon Land. Michael Pulteney, the holder in 1650, was probably father of Sir William Pulteney, who held much land in the district. In 1668 Sir William, on his petition that, being possessed of certain houses, closes and grounds in the parishes of St Martin-in-the-Fields, Chelsea and Fulham for a term which had about 23 years to come, he had surrendered part of them for the enlargement of the King’s park, obtained a lease of the remainder for 34 years more[356]. Pulteney’s land, on the west side of Colman Hedge Lane or Wardour Street, extended from a little south of what is now Little Pulteney Street to a point somewhat north of Edward Street and Broad Street[357]. Thus it included the whole of the close marked in the Plan of 1585 as “Mr Denham’s.” Pulteney also held all the land on the west as far as the present Warwick Street. The Close on the east side of that street was in 1650 called Pesthouse Close, and was probably the site of the Pesthouse which in 1665 was provided for the four parishes of St Martin, St Clement Danes, St Paul Covent Garden, and St Mary Savoy. It was described in 1665 as five acres of ground called Clayfield in Soho Fields[358]. The Pesthouse Close would have included the whole site of Golden Square. Its use must have been discontinued some time previously to 1687 when the Earl of Craven gave land for a Pesthouse elsewhere[359]. Pulteney began to develop his estate for building not long after the extension of his lease in 1668. On the southern boundary a street was formed which at its east end was at first called Knaves Acre, whilst its western extension from the corner of Windmill Street was called Brewer or Brewers Street. Houses in Knaves Acre Lane appear in the Ratebooks in 1671, and in 1673 the number had increased from 15 to 23. Next year there are 15 houses in Knaves Acre and eight in Brewers Street. Knaves Acre appears in Morden and Lea’s map of 1682 as Poultney Street. It was then fully built on the south side, whilst on the north side some houses are shown in gardens. Brewer Street is shown as partly built on both sides, but no name is given. Hatton in 1708 has Pulteney Street or Knaves Acre, and Brewers Street. Strype in 1720 has Poultney Street in his map, but in his text Knaves Acre, which he describes as “narrow and chiefly inhabited by those that deal in old goods and glass bottles.” Knaves Acre still appears in Rocque’s map in 1746; but by that time Pulteney Street turning north from Brewer Street had been built. When the name Knaves Acre finally dropped out of use, the latter street came to be known as Great Pulteney Street, whilst the original Pulteney Street was then called Little Pulteney Street. North of Knaves Acre we come to Peter Street, which first appears in the Ratebooks in 1675. In Morden and Lea’s map it is shown as a _cul-de-sac_; Strype calls it “not over well built.” North again was Edward Street which was probably laid out in 1686 at the same time as Wardour Street[360]. Edward Street led into Broad Street. It seems probable that both sides of Broad Street were on Pulteney’s land; but only the east end was completed till well into the eighteenth century. Expansion in this direction was perhaps blocked for the time by the Pesthouse Field[361]. New Street turning south out of Broad Street formerly had a tablet with the date 1704. Farther west Little Windmill Street (now Lexington Street) and Great Pulteney Street were not completed till much later. So Strype describes both Peter Street and Edward Street as falling into waste ground. But Berwick Street which runs north from Peter Street parallel to Wardour Street had been begun much earlier; there was a French Chapel in Berwick Street in 1689. In 1700 the houses in the part of Wardour Street then called Old Soho backed on houses and lands late in the tenure of Sir William Pulteney. In 1708 Hatton writes of Berwick Street on the north-west side of Pulteney Street or Knaves Acre as “a kind of a Row, the fronts of the houses resting on columns make a small piazza.” Strype calls Berwick Street a pretty handsome street, with new well-built houses much inhabited by the French. About the middle is a place designated for a haymarket with some of the houses built piazza-wise and sustained by stone-pillars; whether it will be finished time will make appear. Piazza is here used in its English signification of a colonnaded building. Perhaps the haymarket was to have been where Broad Street was afterwards extended; there is nothing else in Rocque’s map to suggest that there was ever any other open place. To the north of Brewer Street lies Golden Square. All this district was unbuilt in 1682, but Golden Square is mentioned in the _London Gazette_ in 1688. Pennant in his _History of London_ has a story that it was “originally called Gelding Square from the sign of a neighbouring inn; but the inhabitants, indignant at the vulgarity of the name, changed it to the present.” It would be tempting to trace a connexion with the sixteenth century Gelding’s Close, which, however, lay at a little distance to the north-east. Probably Pennant’s story is no more than a hazy reminiscence of the Close. The name appears as Golding Square in the later editions of Morden and Lea’s map, and Hatton states that it was called Golding Square from the first builder thereof. Strype calls it Golden Square, “a very handsome open place, railed round and gravelled within, having very good houses inhabited by gentry on all sides.” The east and west sides of Golden Square are formed by James Street and John Street. An inscription on a tablet in the lower part of John Street, “This is John’s Street Ano. Dom. 1685,” fixes the date[362]. James Street and John Street were carried through to Silver Street (now part of Beak Street) on the north. Silver Street was already laid out in 1682. But in 1704 the new street called “Little Silver Street,” leading from Broad Street to King Street, being the way to King Street Chapel, though built on both sides was not properly paved. “The Little Way” between Silver Street and Broad Street was in a similar condition[363]. At the west end of Silver Street was the original Beak Street, leading from Warwick Street to Swallow Street. Beak Street is said to owe its name to Thomas Beake, a carpenter or builder, to whom Sir William Pulteney granted a lease of the land in 1685. It appears in the Plan of 1585 as part of the lane leading from Shrug Lane to the Tyburn Road, and is naturally shown as a roadway (though without a name) in 1682. Beak Street was ordered to be paved in April 1691[364]. Strype mentions Beak Street as butting against Warwick Street. Warwick Street was the name given to that part of the old lane which formed the western boundary of Sir William Pulteney’s land. It appears in the Ratebooks in 1675, and by 1682 was fully built, on the west side, though on the other side the houses extended only part way. Strype describes Warwick Street as “not over well built or inhabited towards Maribone Street, but at the upper end it hath some good houses on both sides, the chief of which is that where Sir Henry Goodrich dwells.” This completes the development of Sir William Pulteney’s land in this neighbourhood. [Illustration: GOLDEN SQUARE, LOOKING NORTH, IN 1731 From an engraving by Sutton Nicholls] § 19. WARDOUR STREET TO REGENT STREET The name Wardour Street was applied at first only to the north end of Colman Hedge Lane. That Lane was very long, extending from the Mews to the Uxbridge Road. The southern end as far as Panton Street retained its ancient name as Hedge Lane till about 1830, and was afterwards for a time called Dorset Place. From Panton Street to Coventry Street it was called Whitcomb Street, which Strype describes as “very ordinary.” Between Coventry Street and Compton Street it was called Princes Street. North of Compton Street it was called Sohoe Street in 1678[365], and a short strip along what was Sir William Pulteney’s land still appears as Old Soho in Rocque’s map in 1746. The north end is called “Old Soho otherwise Wardour Street” in 1691, when it was ordered to be paved[366]. The name Wardour Street occurs in 1686 but was not extended to include the whole length from Oxford Street to Coventry Street till 1880. The district with which we have now to deal lay between the original Wardour Street on the east and the lane which became first Swallow Street and eventually Regent Street on the west. It was bounded on the south by Sir William Pulteney’s land and on the north by the Uxbridge Road or Oxford Street. At its north-east corner, where Colman Hedge Lane joined the Uxbridge Road, there was in 1585 a close of Burton Lazar Land, which was commonly called Doghouse Field. This close was held successively by George Sutton, James Bristow and Francis Bristow; the last of whom in 1606 obtained an extension of his lease for forty years. In 1627 the reversion was granted to James Elliott and William Loring, who disposed of their rights to Christopher Vernon of Hartingfordbury in Hertfordshire. Vernon entered on possession in July 1646, and four years later made good his title before the Parliamentary Commissioners. The Close was then described as “five acres of pasture commonly called Doghouse _alias_ Browne’s Close,” bounded by the Uxbridge Road north, the land of Mr Winfielde south, the land of Thomas Martin west, and Coleman’s Lane east[367]. There had apparently been some building of mean tenements on the land before 1650. Subsequently it came into the possession of one Edward Gisby, who granted leases of three tenements to various persons and a few years after the Restoration leased the other 15 tenements and the land to Josua Butler for 31 years at a rent of £31. Josua Butler transferred his term, except one year, to Nathan Butler, who so raised the rents that they brought in above £100 by the year. Edward Wardour acquired a lease of two acres from Nathan Butler, and afterwards purchased the inheritance from Gisby. The Butlers eventually sold their interest to a Mr Pagett, who had a gross rental of about £121, out of which he had to pay £31 to Sir Edward Wardour. This comes from an undated document; but since Wardour is described as a Knight the date cannot be earlier than July 1678[368]. It was then nearly 15 years since the beginning of Josua Butler’s lease. In April 1671, in consequence of a representation made by Christopher Wren as Surveyor-General, a proclamation was issued setting forth that in Windmill Fields, Dogfields and the fields adjoining Soho small and mean habitations had been lately erected and more of that kind were daily preparing, without the King’s allowance and against the express command of the Surveyor-General. These buildings were likely to prove common and public nuisances by being made use of for the most noisome and offensive trades, and by becoming the receptacles of a multitude of the poor to the damage of the parishes concerned which were already too much encumbered. They were, moreover, especially mischievous by choking up the air of His Majesty’s palaces and parks, and by endangering the infection if not the total loss of those waters which by expensefull conduits were conveyed to Whitehall. It was therefore ordered that no more new buildings should be erected, nor any already begun finished without express licence[369]. In the following month a caveat was entered in favour of the Earl of Burlington against any licences being granted for building in the fields to the north of his house, including Dogfields and Windmill Fields[370]. This may for the time have put a check on the building in Dogfield or Doghouse Close. There do not appear to have been any tenements recently built at the time that Sir Edward Wardour’s statement was drawn up. Wardour Street itself[371] was begun in 1686 as is shown by the inscriptions on two tablets on the corner house of Edward Street: “Wardour Street 1686” and “Edward Street 1686.”[372] It is commonly stated that Wardour Street owed its name to Henry, 3rd Lord Arundell of Wardour, who died in 1694. But his connexion with the property is not shown, and the known association with Sir Edward Wardour suggests the probability of a different derivation. At the time when this area began to be laid out and when the name Wardour Street first appears Sir Edward Wardour had a leasehold interest in part of Doghouse Close. It seems probable that both Wardour Street and Edward Street, which turns out of it just south of the Close, owed their names to him. Sir Edward Wardour’s reversionary interest, which did not accrue before 1694, must have expired before the grant of Doghouse Close to the Earl of Portland in 1700[373]. In the Act for St Anne’s Soho in 1678[374] the Blue Anchor is described as the south-east corner house of Sohoe Street (by Compton Street) and the Red Cow as the north-east corner house on the great road (Oxford Street). Wardour Street was, however, not completely finished on either side in 1720. Doghouse Close was in 1585 bounded on the west by Gelding’s Close, the early history of which has been given above[375]. In 1650 the latter Close was described as “all that parcel of enclosed pasture ground lying between the Doghouse Close east, and the land of Mr Pulteney west, abutting on Tyburn Road north, and other land belonging to the said Mr Pulteney south.”[376] Its area was then given as three acres and it was in the occupation of Thomas Watson. Berwick Street, the north part of which lay in Doghouse Close, is described by Strype as having waste ground on its west side reaching to the Pesthouse. This must be an instance where his narrative was out of date before it was printed. For Poland Street, which lay farther west, is given by Hatton as a new street, and Joanna Cutts wrote thence in 1708[377]. It was fully built not much later[378]. Poland Street was a fashionable place of residence; Lord Dupplin lived there in 1714[379], and it still retained its character when Dr Charles Burney went to live there in 1760. The western part of what had been Gelding’s Close was early in the reign of James II acquired for a Pesthouse. William, Earl of Craven, had taken a prominent part in dealing with the Plague in 1665-66, when he was already impressed with the need for providing efficient and suitable pesthouses or isolation hospitals. In 1687 he acquired three acres of land, partly in Gelding’s Close and partly farther west, which he gave in trust for use for a Pesthouse by the out-parishes of Westminster[380]. When the surrounding area was built over, an Act of Parliament was obtained in 1732, under which the site was exchanged for three acres of land in Paddington. This in its turn was built over in 1815 and became Craven Hill Gardens, the revenue from which is now applied to the maintenance of hospitals serving the parishes interested. Hatton describes Carnaby Street as extending from Silver Street to the fields. Strype writes of it that “on the east side of this street are the Earl of Craven’s Pesthouses, seated in a large piece of ground enclosed with a brick wall and handsomely set with trees, in which are buildings for the entertainment of persons that shall have the plague.” After the removal of the Pesthouse, Marshall Street and Carnaby (or Marlborough) Market were laid out on the western part of the site; in the eastern part there remained an open space which was the burial-ground of St James’s parish and is now occupied by the buildings of the St James’s Union. On the south side Broad Street which in 1708 stopped short of Little Windmill Street was extended to Marshall Street. When Strype wrote his account the Pesthouse had on its north side a close of ground which reached to the Tyburn Road. But in his map he shows this area as covered by Great Marlborough Street, Marlborough Mews and Blenheim Street (now Ramillies Street). There were formerly tablets inscribed “Marlborough Street 1704” and “Little Marlborough Street 1703.”[381] Building may have begun thus early, but the streets are not given by Hatton. However, a plan of a little later date shows Great Marlborough Street as extending to the north end of Carnaby Street and “Ely Street” as turning out of it where Ramillies Street now is[382]. But there was then only a little building north of Great Marlborough Street. Nevertheless Strype’s description must have been out of date in 1720. Macky in his _Journey through England_ in 1722 writes that Great Marlborough Street “though not a square surpasseth anything that is called a street in the magnificence of its buildings and gardens, and is inhabited all by a prime quality.” Carnaby Street and Great Marlborough Street included a considerable area to the west and north of Gelding’s Close. We now come to the large close of Mercers Land at the north-east corner of the lane from Piccadilly to the Tyburn Road, and the two smaller closes on its south side. The latter included a close of Abingdon Land which is sometimes called “The Four Acres,” and a smaller piece between it and the lane which is marked on the Plan of 1585 as “The Quene: Mr Poultney.” Afterwards the two last seem to have been thrown together and are sometimes referred to as “The Six Acres.” In 1650 they are described under the name of Carre Close as having the road from Piccadilly to the Tyburn Road on the west, Pesthouse Close on the south, the land of Anthony Ives on the north, and land of Mrs Baker on the east[383]. Carre Close or The Six Acres occupied the space between Swallow Street and Carnaby Street and extended from Beak Street on the south to Foubert’s Passage or Place[384] on the north. A street was made through the middle of it, which was continued northwards to the Tyburn or Oxford Road, and was called King Street. The northern part of King Street seems to have been on the line of the footpath shown in the Plan of 1585 as crossing the Close on the north to the corner of the lane by the Uxbridge or Tyburn Road. The whole of King Street was probably built before 1704; it is shown in the map drawn for Strype’s _Survey_ by Richard Blome[385] who died in 1705; there is reference to the King Street Chapel in 1704[386], and Hatton’s description and map show it as complete, though the parallel part of Swallow Street was then still unfinished. Strype describes King Street as coming out of Beak Street and running north to the road, “a pretty good street, having divers very good houses fit for gentry.” The north part of King Street was demolished when Regent Street was made; the remaining part between Beak Street and Great Marlborough Street is now called Kingly Street. Great Marlborough Street which originally stopped at Carnaby Street was in 1813 extended westwards as Argyll Place to give access to Regent Street. Argyll Street to the east of King Street was built after 1720 and owed its name to a house of the Duke of Argyll. In the last century Argyll House was long the residence of the fourth Earl of Aberdeen, who died there in 1860. § 20. THE ORIGIN OF REGENT STREET Before turning to Conduit Meadow and the adjacent land on the west the history of Shrug Lane and its continuation, which with some modification became Regent Street, must first be given. In 1391 the name Suggen Lane seems to have been applied to the whole length of the lane leading from the Colnbrook Road to the Uxbridge Road as marked on the Plan of 1585. So a little later the highway called “le Sugge” is defined as extending from the Tyburn Chapel to the Mews. This was after 1394, when the lane was reported to be flooded owing to the neglect of Richard Forster to keep the ditches in repair[387]. These seem to be the earliest instances of the use of the name which have yet been discovered. At a later time Shug or Shrug Lane was the name of only a small part at the southern end, which about 1770 came to be called Tichborne Street and was finally absorbed in Piccadilly Circus when Shaftesbury Avenue was constructed in 1886. Between Shrug Lane and Windmill Street there was a triangular area which was built over during the reign of Charles II. Queen Street crossed it diagonally from Windmill Street to Sherwood Street, which ran north from Shrug Lane to Brewer Street. Queen Street appears in the Ratebooks in 1678. Strype describes it as “pretty neat, clean and quiet with good houses well-inhabited.” It is now called Denman Street. Sherwood Street is mentioned in the Ratebook for 1679. It is said to have been called after one Squire Sherwood who was resident in Pulteney Street in 1683. It is called Sheriff Street in Morden and Lea’s map and Sherard Street by Strype, who describes it as “handsome, broad, and well-built and inhabited.” Hatton says “this is called Sherard Street, but Sherwood Street in leases.” Rocque has Sherwood in 1746, but Sherard in 1763. It is now Sherwood Street. Shrug or Shug Lane appears in the Ratebooks in 1678. Strype wrote of it as “meanly built, neither are its inhabitants much to boast of.” The continuation of it as far as Brewer Street was known as Marybone Street and so appears in the Ratebooks in 1678. It is still called Marybone Street by Rocque; ultimately the name of Glasshouse Street, which was nearly on the same line, but on the other side of Swallow Street, was extended to include Marybone Street. The present Glasshouse Street represents only a little more than the ancient Marybone Street. North of Brewer Street the lane became Warwick Street, which is first mentioned in the Ratebooks in 1678, and has been described already[388]. It reached as far as the sharp turning which became Beak Street and led into the north part of the lane. Not long after the original Swallow Street had been built it was continued northwards to fall into the lane at Beak Street, so that there was a long and nearly straight street from Piccadilly to the Tyburn Road. When Regent Street was under reconstruction in 1924-25 it was possible to look right up it from the Piccadilly end of Swallow Street, whilst from Regent Street there was a clear view of St James’s Church. In Morden and Lea’s map of 1682 the building in Swallow Street does not extend farther than Beak Street. But before that map was published Major Foubert, a French refugee, was already in 1681 preparing to establish a military academy and riding-school some little distance farther north, a project in which Evelyn took much interest[389]. Foubert’s riding-school became a famous institution and his name survives in Foubert’s Passage or Place, which leads into Regent Street from Carnaby Street. The riding-school was at the south-west corner. Even at the beginning of the eighteenth century there were still no houses in Swallow Street between Beak Street and the riding-school. Beyond that there were houses on the east side as far as the Tyburn Road. However, by 1720 the street was fully built. Strype describes Swallow Street as “very long, but of no great account for buildings or inhabitants.” Nearly opposite to Foubert’s Passage he states that there stood: “Mr Medwell’s, a fine, large and well-built house with a curious garden before it.”[390] This house had been in existence for a good many years: in 1691 order had been given for Swallow Street to be paved up to “Mr Maidwell’s.”[391] When Regent Street was laid out in 1813 the north end of Swallow Street was straightened and widened to form the main part of the new street, though a fragment of the old street remained at the Oxford Street end in Swallow Passage[392]. For the Quadrant a more graceful curve than that of Glasshouse Street and Tichborne Street was used to bring it round to Piccadilly Circus. The lower end of Regent Street and Waterloo Place were entirely new, being cut through St James’s Market and St Albans Street[393]. Market Street and St Albans Place still recall the ancient names. [Illustration: MAJOR FOUBERT’S RIDING-SCHOOL From a drawing by C. Tomkins in 1801] § 21. THE DISTRICT WEST OF REGENT STREET The whole of the district west of Regent Street was anciently known as The Great Common Field. A considerable area in the north-western part was also known as Conduit Meadow. The closes on the south side along Piccadilly have already been dealt with[394]. On the north of Swallow Close and Stone Conduit Close were two other closes, one of which was partly Abingdon Land and the other was Mercers Land. The first of these is described on the Plan of 1585 as “At The Grauell pitts”; there were probably a number of gravel-pits in the district, for Robert Baker’s land, which was some distance to the east, was also said to be near the Gravel-Pits. In 1650 this Close is described as five acres of pasture called Mulguly Close[395] on the north side of Swallow Close, and bounded on the west by the land of Mr Watts. From its position it was naturally some of the first land in the area to be developed for building. Its south side became Glasshouse Street, which appears in the Ratebooks in 1679. In Morden and Lea’s map three years later Glasshouse Street extends as far as the garden of Sir Thomas Clarges’ house; the roadway continued westwards to the back of Berkeley House, but on the north side there were open fields. The last building on the north side in 1682 was Lady Herbert’s house, facing the buildings at the north end of Lady Dorothy Stanhope’s garden. When Strype wrote the houses continued along the north side to Bond Street; this continuation was then called Vigo Lane, which indicates that its date was after Sir George Rooke’s victory in 1702. Hatton in 1708 does not mention Vigo Lane, and from other sources it appears that the name Glasshouse Street was for a time used for the whole roadway to Bond Street. The houses here were sometimes called Burlington Gardens, a name which did not come into use for the roadway till 1831. Vigo Street then became the name of the original Glasshouse Street farther east, whilst the latter name was applied to the street which was originally called Marybone Street. From Glasshouse Street the continuation of Swallow Street led north to Leicester Street, which appears in the Ratebooks in 1678. Strype describes Leicester Street as “ordinarily built and inhabited, except at the west end where there is a very good house and garden.” Farther on, at the north end of the Close of Mercers Land, Burlington Street (afterwards called Little or New Burlington Street) turned west out of Swallow Street. It was built before 1708. Strype calls it “a pretty short street opening into the fields.” The land at the back of Stone Conduit Close was acquired by the first Earl of Burlington in 1687 from Sir Benjamin Maddox. It was at that time known from its area as “The Ten Acres Field,” and may be identified with the ten acres of pasture which Maddox had included in his marriage settlement in 1664[396]. At first this land seems to have been used as an extension of the gardens of Burlington House. Afterwards the third Earl built on a part of it the house at the end of Savile Row, which is now occupied by the Alpine Club, as a garden or tea-house, the interior decorations being in the same style as those of Burlington House itself. But ultimately the whole area was laid out for building under the Earl’s direction between 1720 and 1733. Old Burlington Street was built before 1729; Queensberry House at its south-east corner was designed for the Duke of Queensberry in 1721; the street was at first called Nowell Street, a name which gave way to Burlington Street in 1733. In Cork Street the Earl of Burlington had designed a house for Marshal Wade in 1723. In the _Daily Post_ for 12th March 1733 it is stated that: “A new pile of buildings is going to be carry’d on near Swallow Street by the Right Hon. the Earl of Burlington, which is to be called Savile Street.” The name was taken from Dorothy Savile, heiress of William, Marquis of Halifax, and wife of the Earl of Burlington. Clifford Street leading from Savile Row to Bond Street was built about the same time. The growth of population in Bond Street and Albemarle Buildings had led to the provision of a chapel for the inhabitants. In 1691 William III, at the request of Dr Tenison, then rector of St Martin’s, gave for their use a wooden building, which had been originally put up by James II in his camp at Hounslow Heath in 1686. Evelyn relates that on 18th July 1691 he “went to hear Mr Strangford preach in the newly erected Church of Trinity in Conduit Street”[397]; when resident in Dover Street he used to attend service at Trinity Chapel. This description has sometimes led to confusion between the sites of the temporary chapel and the permanent one which was afterwards built in the present Conduit Street[398]. Strype describes Trinity Chapel as “a curious neat but small chapel” which stood in the fields at the upper end of Bond Street. Maitland states definitely that the temporary chapel was in Glasshouse Street at the north-east corner of Bond Street[399]. A contemporary plan shows the chapel as standing in the roadway at the end of what was then Bond Street, immediately north of Glasshouse Street[400]. This agrees with the position which the chapel appears to occupy in the view of Old Burlington House. Glasshouse Street at this time included what afterwards became Vigo Street and is now Burlington Gardens. Evelyn’s mention of Conduit Street is peculiar; he must mean the northern continuation of Bond Street. The building of the present Conduit Street, as we shall see, did not begin till 1713. Soon after that date the temporary wooden building was pulled down, and the permanent Trinity Chapel built to take its place near the Bond Street end of Conduit Street on the south side. On the north of The Ten Acres, which was laid out by the Earl of Burlington, the Plan of 1585 shows that part of “Cunditt meadowe” which was described in 1491 as “the angle.” Beyond it to the west lay the main part of the meadow. The connexion of the City of London with this district goes back to the thirteenth century, when in 1236 water was first conveyed in pipes of lead from Tyburn to London. The history of the Conduit Meadows down to their acquisition by Henry VIII in 1536 has been given above[401]. Soon afterwards the City obtained a lease from the Crown of “a medow callyd Cundyd Mede and a close adjoyning to the same, containing by estimacion 24 acres, with oon other close of 3 acres,” for which they paid a yearly rent of £4. 13_s._ 4_d._; the land was then in the actual occupation of Thomas Swallow[402]. We here get the explanation of later references to Conduit Meadow as consisting of 27 acres of land between Piccadilly and Paddington. The leasehold interest of the City in Conduit Meadow under the Crown continued for nearly a century. But at the end of the reign of Elizabeth the Corporation was anxious to secure the freehold. In 1590 an order was made to move the Lord Treasurer and other Commissioners for the sale of Her Majesty’s lands touching the purchase of the Conduit Meades near Tyburn and to agree for the same[403]. Nothing, however, seems to have come of the proposal at that time. More than 20 years after a fresh attempt at purchase appears at first to have been favourably entertained. But on 20th April 1614 the Privy Council passed an order to stay further proceedings for the sale to the City of the two closes called the Conduit Meadow[404]. Ultimately, however, as part of an arrangement made in 1628, by which the City took lands from the King at 28 years purchase in discharge of a debt of nearly £350,000, the City acquired the freehold of Conduit Meadows at the price of £200[405]. As leaseholders the Corporation had underlet the land, and after the acquisition of the freehold the granting of leases continued. In 1624 a lease was granted to Thomas Scarlett of 24 acres, on payment of a fine of £260, for 21 years at a rent of £8. In 1647 John Woods obtained a similar lease for a fine of £300, which in 1653 was extended for 61 years on a further fine of £400[406] Woods’ lease was acquired from his widow by the Earl of Clarendon, who on 7th March 1666/67 obtained a lease to himself for 99 years of 27 acres at the same rent[407]. The description of Conduit Meadow and its boundaries at the time of the contract with the King in 1628[408], and in Clarendon’s lease, is reproduced precisely from the deed of 1491[409]. From the bounds thus given it is clear that the principal part of the Meadow included the whole of the future New Bond Street. A map[410] drawn soon after 1700 shows that the southern boundary of the Conduit Meadow began on the west at Hay Hill and dipped eastwards to a point nearly opposite to Burlington Gardens or Vigo Lane. Thus the Conduit Estate included the north parts of the present Dover Street and Albemarle Street. The lands were sublet by Clarendon or his heirs, and it was by the eventual assignees that they were developed for building. Of four and a half acres the Marquess of Normanby had a demise, and in 1694 obtained a further lease in reversion for 100 years, which the City some 50 years afterwards repurchased at a greatly enhanced price. At the time of the acquisition by the City the Conduit Meadows were still pasture land. So long as they continued in this state the only cause for anxiety was the possibility of injury to the pipes by which water was conveyed from Tyburn not only to the City but also to the new houses in Piccadilly, St James and the Haymarket. In this latter area there was always some trouble with individuals, who without licence grafted quills in the pipes. When Colonel Panton was developing his estate in 1673 the pipes were laid bare and arrangements had to be made for their protection from such practices[411]. Ten years later a proposal by Richard Fryth and his associates to dig for brick in the meadows led to a lawsuit, lest damage might be caused to the pipes. The Conduit waters, like the land, were leased; when in 1716 the land was built on, the lessees of the land had to make a vault to carry the pipes for 800 feet from Maddox Street to the south end of Bond Street, and further to grant some pieces of land to the lessees of the waters[412]. There was no considerable building on the Conduit Estate till 1713, when Conduit Street, which crossed Conduit Mead diagonally, was commenced. A plan drawn in 1717[413] shows the progress that had by that time been made. There were then 13 houses on the north side not extending so far as Mill Street. On the south side Trinity Chapel (which was rebuilt on this site in 1716) is shown, with houses on both sides of it reaching a little beyond Mill Street. The same plan shows some houses immediately south of Conduit Street on both sides of what shortly became New Bond Street. A recommendation was made in 1717 that steps should be taken to mark the lands which belonged to the City; but apparently nothing was done, and 15 years later, when the Conduit Mead was entirely built over, it was reported that the bounds described in the leases were in danger of being lost sight of. The lease of the greater part of the Conduit Meadows was then vested in the widow of Huntley Bigge. In 1723 it was alleged that Lord Clarendon’s assignees had reserved ground rents amounting to £2000[414]. The large close of Mercers Land on the north side of the “angle” of Conduit Meadow was developed about the same time. In 1585 it was in the occupation of Thomas Wilson. At the beginning of the eighteenth century it was known as Millfield, and was then the property of the Earl of Scarborough[415]. On 1st January 1717/18 the _Weekly Journal_ announced that: “the new buildings between Bond Street and Marylebone go on with all possible diligence; and the houses even let and sell before they are built. They are already in great forwardness.” About the same time it was stated in the _Weekly Medley_: “Round about the new square which is building near Oxford Road there are so many edifices that a whole magnificent city seems to be risen out of the ground.” Strype’s map in 1720 shows Great George Street, Hanover Square and the adjacent streets as all built, though he gave no description of them in his text. Robert Seymour[416] in 1735 states that in Hanover Square “the houses make a grand appearance and are inhabited by noblemen and gentlemen of the first quality.” Of Princes Street and Hanover Street he writes that the houses were of the second-rate and were some of them inhabited by tradesmen. Great George Street was “the noblest of all the streets near this square,” broad, well-paved and clean, with very fine houses of noblemen and people of the first rank; “the crystal lamps before the doors of people of quality give a much better and truer light than those set up at the public charge.” In Maddox Street the houses were only second-rate. Though the development of Albemarle Buildings had not been very fortunate for its undertakers and was still incomplete when Strype wrote, the extension of Bond Street northwards had made good progress by 1720. The first extension as far as Conduit Street must have been made about 1713. Strype’s map shows Bond Street as continued up to Little Maddox Street, the remaining part up to the Oxford Road being marked as laid out for building. When the whole was completed the north part became New Bond Street, whilst the original portion was called Old Bond Street. Though New Bond Street did not rival the older street as a place of residence, its shops soon gave it repute of another kind as a fashionable resort and promenade. Throughout the eighteenth century it was a favourite quarter for high class lodgings. Swift, during his last visit to London in 1727, stayed with his cousin Lancelot in New Bond Street over against The Crown and Cushion. At a later time Johnson’s friend Benet Langton had lodgings at “Mr Rothwell’s the perfumer in New Bond Street.” So it was natural for Fielding to make Tom Jones on his arrival in London take a room for himself in Bond Street on the second floor, with one for Partridge on the fourth, the first floor being inhabited by a young gentleman of wit and pleasure. The line of New Bond Street is somewhat farther west than the boundaries of the “angle” of Conduit Meadow and the Close on its north side as marked in the Plan of 1585. The Aybrook, which formed the western boundary of the main Conduit Meadow, was only a little farther west than New Bond Street, except at the north end where it is marked by South Molton Lane, and at the south where it bent westwards to Hay Hill. On the other side of the brook was land of Eybury Manor, which Mary Davies in 1676 brought as part of her inheritance to the Grosvenor family. Grosvenor Square, the buildings of which were described by Seymour as “the most magnificent in this great town,” was laid out in 1725. But the area comprised in the Plan of 1585 includes the site of only the eastern ends of Brook Street, Grosvenor Street and Bruton Street, and extends but a little way beyond the western boundary of the main Conduit Meadow. § 22. THE OXFORD ROAD The Plan of 1585 necessarily took in a considerable area on the north side of “the Waye frome Uxbridge,” as it is there called, which is of course identical with the modern Oxford Street. But since this area lay entirely outside the purpose of the Plan no detail is shown, and no more than a brief note need be given here. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the road is commonly described as the way to Uxbridge or the way to Tyburn. In the Act for St Anne’s Soho in 1678 it is called simply “the King’s highway or great road.” However, in Morden and Lea’s map of 1682 “the Road to Oxford” is shown as beginning at St Giles’s Pound, which was in the roadway at the south end of Tottenham Court Road. The name was then probably beginning to come into use. But in the Ratebook of St Anne’s Soho for 1691 it is the Acton Road. In the map (dated 1707) in Hatton’s _New View of London_ we get “the Road to Oxford.” Hatton does not, however, include the Oxford Road in the list of streets in his text. He there defines the Tyburn Road as “between St Giles’s Pound east, and the lane leading to the gallows west, 350 yards.” From Tottenham Court Road a distance of 350 yards brings us nearly to Berwick Street, which was about the limit of building when Hatton wrote. Beyond Berwick Street on the west the road then became a country lane leading to the gallows. Strype still applies the name Tyburn Road to the eastern portion. But before 1720 the name Oxford Street was coming into use, and a tablet at the corner of Rathbone Street has the inscription “Rathbones Place in Oxford Street. 1718.” Seymour in 1735 with reference to South Molton Street writes of the Oxford Road as converted into a street, and Rocque’s map in 1746 extends Oxford Street as far west as New Bond Street, beyond which point it is there called the Tyburn Road. On the south side of the street Hatton’s map shows no building west of Berwick Street, but the whole was built as far as New Bond Street very little later than 1720. On the north side in 1707 there were only a few houses farther west than the Tottenham Court Road, but Rathbones Place (now Rathbone Street) was built in 1718. Nevertheless Madame D’Arblay, when relating how her father, Dr Burney, went to live in Poland Street in 1760, states that the Oxford Road then had little on its northern side but fields and garden grounds. So far as regards the space immediately opposite the ends of Wardour Street and Berwick Street this is confirmed by the evidence of Rocque’s map of 1746, which shows only a narrow fringe of houses between Rathbones Place and Marybone Place (now Wells Street). But farther west there was a continuous line of building on the north side as far as Mary-le-bone Lane, extending backwards so as to include Wigmore Row, Cavendish Square, and Mortimer Street. Cavendish Square and the neighbouring streets were built on the estate which came to Edward Harley, afterwards second Earl of Oxford, by his marriage in 1713 to Henrietta Cavendish-Holles, daughter and heiress of the Duke of Newcastle. Their only child Margaret married William Bentinck, second Duke of Portland. To these two marriages the Square and neighbouring streets owe their names. Cavendish Square was designed in 1717-18, though the work was delayed by the financial crisis of the South Sea Bubble. A house was building there for Lord Harcourt in 1720-21. The north side was left vacant for a mansion for the Duke of Chandos, which was, however, never built[417]. Cavendish Square was sometimes called Oxford Square. Henrietta Street, the site of which comes within the Plan, was built at the same time as Cavendish Square. § 23. STREET-PLANNING AND THE PLAN OF 1585 In following the history of the building of the streets the reader can hardly have failed to observe how closely the lines of the old lanes and fields were reproduced in the original lay out. In Rocque’s map it is easy to trace the outlines not only of such areas as Marshland (or Seven Dials), St Giles’s Field and St Martin’s Field, all of which were bounded by ancient roadways that became streets, but also of less well-defined areas like Swallow Close, the Round Ringles and the lesser Conduit Meadow. Even in small details, such as the western outline of Old Soho, the north side of Castle Street on the south of the Seven Dials area, and the east side of the original Bond Street, the field boundaries are reproduced. So also ancient footpaths survived in King Street, Norris Street and Panton Street. The Plan of 1585 was thus stamped clearly on the map of eighteenth century London. The changes and improvements of the last hundred years, and in particular the construction of Regent Street, of Shaftesbury Avenue and of the Charing Cross Road, have tended to obliterate the ancient Plan. But if we would seek to discover how this district of modern London received the general outlines of its streets we must still go for an answer to the Plan of 1585. If the preceding pages have shown why the Plan of 1585 is historically so instructive, they must also have suggested the complete absence of any general design for the laying out of the streets in the area as a connected whole. There is, however, a little independent evidence that some persons, whilst it was still not too late, had recognised the importance of a systematic planning of the whole part of the area which was as yet unbuilt. About 1673 Philip Lea published a map of London “as now rebuilt after the late Fire.” By that time the Earl of St Albans and his associates had completed the laying out of St James’s Field on lines which are correctly reproduced in the map. But as yet there was little building to the north of Piccadilly, where nevertheless Lea’s map shows a considerable area laid out on a regular and rectangular plan. The ancient roadways which became Piccadilly and Wardour Street are straightened. Parallel to Piccadilly on the north there is shown a straight street extending from the north side of the gardens of Clarendon House on the west to the corner of Marshland Close (or Seven Dials) on the east. Crossing this street at right angles two streets are shown connecting Piccadilly with the Oxford Road about on the lines of Sackville Street and Air Street. Shrug Lane appears, but only as a subordinate diagonal street and with its irregularity straightened. On the south side of Piccadilly Lea’s map shows York Street continued northwards to give access to Piccadilly from St James’s Square. Ogilby, in the Introduction to his _Britannia_, states that west of Eagle Street “you have Portugal Street on the left leading into the area or square of the new buildings.” The use of the name Portugal Street is peculiar, but it refers clearly to a continuation of York Street. Ogilby wrote in 1675, but when a few years later St James’s Church was built this street was abandoned. The confirmation of Lea’s map on a minor point suggests that his larger design, if not officially adopted, had been discussed by persons interested in the laying out of the streets. [Illustration: FROM PHILIP LEA’S MAP OF “LONDON AS NOW REBUILT AFTER THE LATE FIRE,” _c._ 1673] The excellence of the general design embodied in Lea’s map is so obvious, that we may wonder why it was not followed. Had the whole area remained in the possession of the Crown, it may be conjectured that under the direction of Wren as Surveyor-General some such well-considered scheme would have been carried out. But we have seen how through leases and grants the control of the land had passed into the hands of a number of private persons. Thus each individual owner was concerned primarily in the development of his own property with the maximum of profit to himself. From the consequent piecemeal development of the land for building we get an explanation of the closeness with which the ancient field boundaries are reproduced in the streets[418]. This will have occurred equally, whether the street was made along the field boundary (as was the case in Pulteney Street) or whether it was placed a little within, so as to secure both frontages to the holder of the land (as seems to be the case with Broad Street). The restrictions on building, though not inspired by any definite purpose of street-planning, were not without service. We have seen how Wren was called in to advise on Colonel Panton’s proposals, and how he intervened successfully to prevent the erection of undesirable buildings in St Giles’s Field. That intervention led to the laying out of Soho by skilled surveyors, through which it remained for a century an agreeable and fashionable residential quarter. The planning of the streets suggests that Lord Gerrard’s estate, which was developed at the same time as Soho, was laid out in harmony with the adjoining area. But this seems to be the only instance in which the streets on two separate properties had a common design. St James’s Field was the largest area which was laid out on a single scheme, and there, except for the construction of Regent Street, the square and streets remain to-day almost as they were designed for the Earl of St Albans. Some minor properties like Seven Dials, Albemarle Buildings, and the Earl of Burlington’s estate in The Ten Acres were carefully planned within their own limits. But in the whole district between Swallow Street and Wardour Street it is difficult to trace the existence of any considered system of street-planning. Of any foresight of future needs there is little evidence. St Martin’s Lane and Hedge Lane were left to follow their ancient narrow and tortuous courses. Swallow Street was perhaps developed consciously as part of a scheme similar to that suggested in Lea’s map, but must always have been in places too narrow for the main thoroughfare north and south. The extension of Bond Street northwards to the Oxford Road seems to have been an afterthought. The Haymarket was left as the only practical line for traffic from Piccadilly to the Strand. It was not till the last century that anything was done to remedy the defects of the original laying out of the streets. The Plan of 1585 is remarkable for the almost entire absence of houses in a district which was already on the outskirts of the town. To the fact that it was drawn on the very eve of expansion it owes some of its peculiar interest. Though the development began within 30 years the process was at first slow, and west of St Martin’s Lane there was no systematic building till after the Restoration. Only about Piccadilly was there a small cluster of good houses, and in Soho Fields a growing number of mean and disreputable dwellings. If the growth had been slow till the Restoration, from that time it proceeded with such rapidity that within sixty years nearly the whole area included within the Plan was covered with houses. It was to the neighbourhood of the Court and the demand for new houses by persons of quality that the earlier expansion in Covent Garden and St Martin’s Lane in the time of Charles I had been due. The Civil War and the rule of the Commonwealth for a time put a check on the continued growth of the town. The Restoration and the revival of the Court and of aristocratic society created a new demand. The Earl of St Albans set the example, building his Square avowedly to provide mansions suitable for persons of rank. Most of the building in and about Piccadilly was in the first instance of a residential character. Nearly all this district was built over before 1680; the development of Soho and its neighbourhood came a little later. The long delay over Albemarle Buildings may suggest that speculative building had outstripped the demand; though the excessive price which Lady Berkeley could obtain for ground rents in 1684 shows that the fever of speculation had not then abated. The principal building during the last years of the seventeenth century was in the north part of Windmill Field and about Golden Square. Farther west there was a halt till 1710, but then within a few years the whole district west of Swallow Street was built over, and houses began to spring up to the west of New Bond Street and on the north of the Oxford Road. In sixty years the rapid growth of building had entirely transformed the west end of London. Even in 1684 Evelyn could write: “To such a mad intemperance was the age come of building about a city, by far too disproportionate already to the nation: I having in my time seen it almost as large again as it was within my memory.”[419] APPENDIX I. THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE LAWSUIT ABOUT GELDING’S CLOSE There are three separate sets of documents. The first, in _Exchequer Special Commissions_ 1391, has to do with the case of Bristowe _v._ Wilson in 1585 and gives the Articles on both sides, a note of the grounds appointed to be measured, and the depositions of the witnesses. The second set comes from _Exchequer Bills and Answers_, London and Middlesex, 190. This gives the Petition of Thomas Wilson, in 1589, with the Answers by Bristowe and the Replication of Thomas Wilson; of these only full abstracts are given here. The third set, from _Exchequer Depositions_, 32 Elizabeth, Easter, No. 21, gives the Interrogatories and Depositions in the suit of Wilson _v._ Bristowe in 1590. I. _Bristowe_ v. _Wilson_: 1585 _Ex parte Querentis_ Articles to be inquired of and certified by the Commissioners betwene James Bristowe, esquier, playntiff, and Thomas Wilson, defendant. _In primis._ To sett owte by metes and boundes the landes whiche Thomas Wilson or his assignes held by vertue or color of a graunte made by the Queenes Ma^{tie} that nowe is to William Dodington in the seconde yere of her highnes reigne. _Item._ To enquire what landes Kinge Henry the eight purchased of the Abbot of Abendon, then specified to lye in the parisshe of Saynte Margarets in Westminster, and valued by the sayde Abbott to and at the yerely value of fyve poundes, and to sett oute the same landes by metes and boundes, and to certifie the contentes therof and in what parisshe or parisshes the same do lye at this day. _Item._ To make a trewe plotte of the Close called Gueldinges Close conteyned in the bill exhibited into the Courte of the Exchequer Chamber by James Bristowe agaynste Thomas Wylson. Tho. Hanshaw. _Ex parte defendentis_ Artycles to be inquired of and certifyed by the Commissioners betwene James Bristowe, plaintyff, and Thomas Willson defendant. _In primis._ To survey all the landes and groundes in the Letters Pattentes made by the Queenes Ma^{tie} to William Dodington, which was sometyme parcell of the landes of the Mercers of London, and lykewyse all the landes conteynte in a lease made to Rauffe Marten and George Sutton by the late King Henry the eight in the thirtie yeare of his reigne, and the landes and tenementes demysed by the late King Edward the Sixte to S^r Anthonye Dennye, knight, lyenge in S^{te} Martynes parishe. _Item._ To certefye in whose occupacion the same groundes were at the tyme of the sayde lease or leases made, and in whose occupacion nowe they be and to whome the rentes thereof have bin by the occupiers payde, and upon measure thereof to set downe the full contentes of the nomber of acres of ech partye. _Item._ To enquire and certefye which of the sayde landes or tenementes were sometymes in the tenure of one Raye and who did ferme them at the handes of the sayde Raye. _Item._ A parfytt plott to be made at the indifferent chardges of eyther partye of the Close called Geldinges Close and of the groundes next there aboutes, and wythall to trye, examyne and certefye whether the same Close was in the parrishe of Sainte Martins or of Sainte Margarettes at the tyme of the lease made to Marten and Sutton, and in what parryshe the same is or hath ben reputed to be. Commission to John Sotherton, one of the Barons of the Exchequer, Robert Wrothe, esq., William Fuller, esq., one of the Auditors of the Exchequer, Edmund Pooley, esq., William Gerrarde, gent., and Richard Frampton, gent., to inquire into all matters in certain Schedules of Articles or Interrogatories hereto annexed, and to report on the quinzaine of Easter. Under Letters Patent dated 24 Jan. 27 Elizabeth (1585). _Endorsed_: Execucio istius Commissionis patet in quadam Charta vocata a platte, supervisione sive terrar[420], et Depositionibus huic Commissioni annexis. John Sotherton. William Gerrard. Robert Wrothe. Richard Frampton. William Fuller. Edm. Poley. A Note of all such groundes as were appoynted by the Commyssyoners to be measured accordinge to the Commyssyon betwene M^r Brystowe and M^r Wylson. The Quenes Landes in the occupacion of M^r Brystow, marked with A. and coloured with light redd, and claymed by him as parcell of Abington landes. 1. One parcell of grounde, beinge parte of Geldinges Close, the other parte of the same nowe in questyon on the East, Wyndmyll field on the Southe, and M^r Wilson on the Northe and Weste. 1 _ac._ 2 _r._ 18⅛ _p._ 2. One parcell in Windmyll feilde, the Wyndmyll, Wydow Golightly, M^r Wylson, Burton Lazer on the Southe, Colman Hedge Lane on the Easte, and M^r Poultney, farmore of Saincte James lande on the Weste. 0 _ac._ 3 _r._ 4¾ _p._ 3. One parcell in Wyndmyll feild, M^r Wylson on the Southe Easte and Northe, and M^r Poultney, farmore of Saincte James lande, on the Weste. 4 _ac._ 0 _r._ 13 _p._ 4. One parcelle, the waye from London to Colbrooke on the Southe, the farme lande of Saincte James on the West, Wydowe Golightely on the Easte, and M^r Wylson on the Northe. 8 _ac._ 3 _r._ 18½ _p._ 5. One parcell at the Gravelpyttes. 1 _ac._ 2 _r._ 26 _p._ 6. One parcell, the way to Colbrooke on the Southe, Round Ryngles on the East, a lane to the Northe, Wydowe Golightely on the Weste. 1 _ac._ 0 _r._ 23 _p._ 7. One close in Saincte Gyles fyeld, Colman hedge lane on the West, Burton Lazer landes on the Southe and East, the way to Woxbridge[421] on the North. 4 _ac._ 1 _r._ 0 _p._ 8. One parcell[422], lienge in a field beyonde Saincte James farme, the landes belonginge to Saincte James farme on the Northe and Weste, the way leadinge under the bricke walle of Saincte James Parke on the Southe, and the Neate lande on the East. 12 _ac._ 2 _r._ 14½ _p._ Summa: 34 _ac._ 3 _r._ 19¾ ⅛ _p._ _Signed by_ Sotherton, Wrothe, Fuller and Frampton. The Quenes landes called Burton Lazer landes in the occupacion of M^r Brystowe, marked B. and coloured with sadd redd. 1. One close lyenge betwene Gueldinges Close and Colman hedge Lane, M^r Denham on the Southe, Woxbrydge highe way on the Northe. 5 _ac._ 2 _r._ 16 _p._ 2. One close in Colman hedge field, M^r Wylson on the West, Colman hedge lane on the East, Abington lands on the Northe, and Colbrooke way on the South. 3 _ac._ 3 _r._ 26 _p._ 3. In Saincte Gyles fielde two parcels specyfied in the letters pattentes to be xxv acres, the highe way leadinge from Woxbridge to London on the Northe, the highe way leadinge from Knightsbridge to Saincte Gyles in the fieldes on the Southe, Colman hedge Lane and one close of Abbington landes in the said Saincte Gyles fielde on the West, and a lane leadinge from one of the foresaid higheways to the other on the South. 27 _ac._ 1 _r._ 2 _p._ 4. One close called Marshe lande[423], Long acre on the Southe East, the highe way from Saincte Martynes to Saincte Gyles on the West and Northe, M^r Gouldinges lande on the North easte. 9 _ac._ 2 _r._ 33 _p._ 5. One parcell belonginge to a tenement in Saincte Gyles called the Rose[424] ys joynynge to a lane leadinge from Drury Lane to Sainct Gyles, part whereof ys pasture and parte gardenynge. 6 _ac._ 1 _r._ 0 _p._ Summa 52 _ac._ 1 _r._ 1½ _p._ _Signed as before._ Mr Wylson’s Landes marked with W. coloured with yellow in the plotte. 1. One parcell of grounde in the fielde called Wyndmyll field, on the West syde of that parte is Gueldinges Close in the occupacion of M^r Bristowe, the Northe lande or a close of M^r Wylsons, the West syde on a parcell of the heires of M^r Huicke. 0 _ac._ 3 _r._ 6 _p._ 2. One parcell nighe the same, the heires of M^r Huicke on the East, M^r Wylsons on the Northe and Southe, and a parcell of Abbington landes on the Weste. 1 _ac._ 2 _r._ 16 _p._ 3. One parcell in Wyndmyll field, M^r Poultney, farmore of S^t James lands on the South, the lane on the West, a parcell of Abbington lande called fower acres on the Northe and West eande. 5 _ac._ 3 _r._ 0 _p._ 4. One parcell wheron standeth the Wyndmyll, whiche hathe fyve acres and yet but iiij acres one roode xxxviij poles one quarter, and hath a quarter wherin M^r Wylson shoulde have iij but beinge devyded into five partes his iij partes is but 2 _ac._ 2 _r._ 30⅛ _p._ 5. One close on the east syde of the Wyndmyll, the way leadinge to Colbrooke on the Southe eande, Wydowe Golightly on the Weste, one acre of Abbington lande on the North, and a close of Burton Lazer on the East. 1 _ac._ 27¼ _p._ 6. One close called Scavengers Close, Wydowe Golightly on the Southe, the way from Charing Crosse to Colbrooke on the Weste and North, and Colman hedge lane on the East. 3 _ac._ 1 _r._ 6¾ _p._ 7. One close, the way from London to Woxbridge on the Northe, Gueldinges Close on the Easte, parcell of Abbington, M^r Wylson, a parte of Gueldinges Close and the heires of M^r Huicke on the Southe, a lane on the Weste. 13_ac._ 1 _r._ ¼ _p._ 8. One close nere the same, the lane on the East, London higheway on the North, Conduite meadowes on the Weste and Southe. 15 _ac._ 0 _r._ 30 _p._ 9. Twoe closes, Conduite meadowes on the North and West, a lane and a parcell of Abbington lande on the Easte, one parcell of Abbington lande on the Southe. 11 _ac._ 0 _r._ 7½ _p._ 10. The Close by the Mewes, 2 _ac._ 0 _r._ ⅛ _p._ 11. A parte of Gueldinges Close now in questyon. 2 _ac._ 2 _r._ 20½ _p._ Summa 59 _ac._ 1 _r._ 24¼ _p._ _Signed by_ Sotherton, Wrothe, Fuller, Poley, Gerrarde and Frampton. Inter Jacobum Brystowe, ar., querentem, et Thomam Wilson, defendentem. _Ex parte defendentis_ Willm. Downes, of the parish of S^t Martyn in the feilde in the Countie of Midd., citezen and merchaunt Taylour of London, of the age of three score and nyne yeres, sworne and examyned, deposeth and saith: To the first and seconde Interrogatoryes that he doith knowe all the landes and groundes in the letters patentes made by the Quenes Ma^{tie} to Willm. Dodyngton aboute the seconde yere of hir highnes reigne lienge and beinge in the said parishe of S^t Martyn in the feilde: but whether the same were parcell of the landes of the Mercers of London, yea or no, he knoweth not. Also he deposeth that he doith not knowe all the landes conteyned in a lease made to Rafe Marten and George Sutton: nevertheless he knoweth a parcell of grounde lienge beyonde S^t James ffarme conteyninge betwene xij and xiiij acres, also one other parcell called White Cundyte Close conteynyng aboute seaven or eight acres, and also one other parcell of lande lienge nere aboute the said White Cundyte Close conteynynge aboute three or foure acres, moreover twenty fyve acres lienge nere S^t Giles townes ende and fyve acres inclosed abuttynge upon one ende of Colman hedge lane, and fyve acres more inclosed at the other ende of the said Colman hedge lane, and divers other parcelles of lande, all whiche parcelles of lande Rafe Marten by him selfe and his assignes did occupie in the tyme of the reigne of our late soveraigne ladye Quene Mary and doe lie in the parishe of S^t Martyn in the feilde aforesaid: but who did occupie any parcell of the said landes from the xxx^{th} yere of the reigne of our late soveraign Lorde Kynge Henry Theight untill the said reigne of Quene Mary he cannot depose. Moreover, he deposeth that he doith know the Close called Geldynges Close now in controversy and hath knowen the same from the first or seconde yere of Quene Marye untill now, and that he never harde or did knowe in all that tyme that either the said Rafe Marten, George Sutton or any other beinge their assigne did ever occupie or enjoye the same to his knowledge: but he saieth that as he remembreth aboute the thirde or fourth yere of Quene Mary one widowe Kirby beinge the late wife of Randall Kirbie did occupie the said close called Geldynges Close as tenaunte to one Roger Lee, whiche Roger Lee helde the same by graunte from S^r Anthonye Denny, knight, and died, and afterward it came to William Lee his brother, which William Lee sold his interest therin to M^r Tamworthe, and to his remembraunce the said widowe occupied the same untill one Kyngstone a brickmaker helde the same: but of whome the said Kyngston helde it this deponent knoweth not, whiche Kyngston was the first man that devyded the said Geldynges Close. Item to the Third Interrogatory he saith that he never knew that Raye did occupie any of the said landes and tenementes. Item to the Fourth Interrogatory he saieth that the said close called Geldynges Close nowe is in the parishe of S^t Martyns aforsaid and so hath bene reputed and taken synce the seconde yere of Quene Mary to his knowledge: but whether the same close was in the parishe of S^t Martyns or S^t Margarettes at the tyme of the lease made to Martyn and Sutton he cannot depose. _Idem ex parte Querentis_ To the first and second Interrogatories he saieth that he doith not knowe nor can tell that the close called Geldinges Close nowe in controversye is any parcell of the landes whiche Kynge Henry the eight purchased of the late Abbott of Abbyngton specified to lye in the parishe of S^t Margarettes in Westminster and valued by the said Abbott to and at the yerelie value of fyve poundes: but he knoweth that the said close doith nowe lie in the parishe of S^t Martyns in the feilde in the Countie of Midd. _Ex parte defendentis_ William Jasper, of the parishe of S^t Martyns in the feild aforesaid, joyner, of the age of threescore yeres, sworne and examyned the day and yere aforesaid: to the first Interrogatorie he saieth that he doith knowe divers parcelles of landes lienge in the feildes and parishe of S^t Martyn aforesaid: but whether the same were conteyned in the letters patentes to William Dodyngton or were parcell of the landes of the Mercers of London he knoweth not. Also he saieth that he knowith not what landes were conteyned in the lease made to Rafe Martyn and George Sutton in the xxx^{th} yere of his reigne, neither knowith he what landes were letten to S^r Anthony Denny, knight, by Kyng Edwarde the Sixth. Item to the second Interrogatory he saieth he doith knowe that one Roger Lee, beinge S^r Anthony Dennys man, did receave rent as well for the said Geldynges Close now [in controversy] as for other landes graunted to the said S^r Anthony Denny and that Randall Kyrbye and his wief after hym did occupie the said Geldynges Close and paid rent [to the said] Roger Lee for the same. Afterwards one Kyngston upon composition bitwene the said Randalls wydowe and hym toke parte of the said Geldynges Close of the said widowe, [by which Kyngston] the said Geldynges Close was devided: which Randalls widowe afterwarde married one Huggyns, who occupied all or some parte of the said Geldynges Close ...[425] Item to the third Interrogatory he saieth he did never knowe one Raye and therfore he knowith not whether he or any under hym did ever occupie [any of the said landes or tenementes]. Item to the fourth Interrogatory he saieth he hath knowen for the space of these fiftie yeres the said close called Geldinges Close to be in the parishe of S^t Martyn in the feilde. _Idem ex parte Querentis_ To the first he cannot depose. Item to the second beinge demaunded whether the close called Geldinges Close now in controversy were parcell of the landes purchased of the said Abbott of Abyngton ... he knowith not. * * * * * Richard Darlowe, of the parishe of S^t Martyn in the feilde, inholder, of the age of threescore yeres or thereabout, sworne and examyned, deposeth and saieth to the first Interrogatory that he knowith all the landes and groundes in the parishe of S^t Martins aforesaid: but he doith not knowe the landes graunted by Letters Pattent by the name of ... and graunted to the said Dodyngton as parcell of the land of the Mercers of London. And saieth that he doith not knowe of any landes conteyned in a lease made to [Rafe Marten and George] Sutton by the late Kyng Henry theight in the xxx^{th} yere of his reigne by that name: neither knoweth he the landes and tenementes demised by the late Kyng Edward the Sixth to S^r Anthony Dennye, knight, lyenge in the said parishe of Seynt Martyn by that name. Item to the second Interrogatory he saieth that he doith not knowe who hath been the occupiers of all the said groundes: but he knoweth well a close [called Geldynges close] parcell of ... and hath known the same ever sithence the death of Kyng Henry theight and that from that tyme one Randall Kirbie [and his widow did occupy the close] and afterward one Huggyns, who married the said widowe, and after that one Kyngston, and after hym one Bright did occupie and yet doith the bigger [parte] of the said [close]: to whom any of the said tenauntes paid there rent other than the said Bright who paid and doith paye his rente to M^r Wilson this Deponent knowith not. Item to the third Interrogatory he saieth that he did never knowe one Raye, neither who hath enjoyed any of the said landes under or from him. Item to the fourth Interrogatory he saieth that he knoweth well from the death of Kyng Henry theight and before that the close called Geldynges Close was in the parishe of S^t Martyn in the feildes and not in S^t Margaretts: and more to the said Interrogatory he cannot depose. _Idem ex parte Querentis_ To the first Interrogatory he saieth that he cannot certyfye the [content] of that article by that name. To the seconde he saieth he doith not knowe of any lande purchased by Kyng Henry theight of the Abbott of Abyngton: but further to this article he cannot depose by that name: and being demaunded in whose occupacion the said Geldynges Close is, he saieth that one Richard Cockshott now holdeth the lesser part of the said Geldynges Close from M^r Brystow or M^r Pulteney: and the said Bright holdeth the greater parte of the said Geldynges Close as before in his examynacion on the parte of the defendant he hath said. _Ex parte Defendentis_ Harolde Byngham, of the parishe of S^t Martyn in the feilde, baker, aged lxv yeres or thereaboutes, sworne and examyned deposeth and saieth to the first Interrogatory that he doith knowe all the landes and groundes in the said parishe of S^t Martyns, but what landes were graunted by letters pattentes to William Dodyngton [or whether they] were sometymes parcell of the Abbot of Abyngdon he knoweth not: he saieth further that he knoweth that S^r Anthony Denny, knight, had divers landes and ... M^r Poultney, lett unto hym from Kynge Edward the Sixth: but what parcelles he knowith not but only Geldynges Close, whiche close he knew ... a parcell of grounde of one widow Kyrbie, which adjoyned to the said Geldynges Close: and saieth that one [Roger Lee] the servant to the said S^r Anthony ... but how ... he knoweth not: and beinge demaunded what landes he knewe that one Rafe Martyn and George Sutton helde by lease from Kynge Henry theight saieth that he knewe but onlie one close whiche is called Martyns Close within the parishe aforesaid: and further being demaunded whether he knewe one Randall Kyrbie ... of the said parishe by lease or otherwise from the said Rafe Martyn, saieth he knew of ...: and further to that Interrogatory he cannot depose. To the seconde he saieth that the said Randall Kyrbye and his wife after hym did occupie the said Geldynges Close and paied rente to the said Roger a Lee for the said close: and more to that Interrogatory he cannot saye. To the third he saieth that he neither knew Raye nor what lande he occupied, neither who farmed any landes at the said Rayes handes. To the fourth he saieth that the said close called Geldynges Close lieth within the parishe of S^t Martyns and not of S^t Margarettes: and further to this Interrogatory he cannot depose. _Ex parte Defendentis_ Andrew Weston of the said parishe of S^t Martyns, joyner, of the age of lvij yeres or thereaboute, beinge sworne and examyned, deposeth and saieth: To the first Interrogatory that he knoweth not what landes and groundes were graunted by letters pattentes from the Quenes Ma^{tie} to William Dodyngton, whiche were parcell of the land [of the Mercers of London], neither knoweth he of any landes that were lett to Rafe Martyn and George Sutton by the late Kyng Henry theight: but he saieth that he hath harde [that S^r Anthony] Denny, knight, hath hadd certeyn landes lett unto hym in the said parishe of S^t Martyns by the late Kyng Edward the Sixth: and saieth further that he hath hard that Geldynges Close was parcell of the said landes letten to the said S^r Anthony, and knoweth that one Roger Lee receaved as well the rente for Geldynges Close of one widowe Kyrbye as also all other rentes whiche the said S^r Anthony hadd in the said parishe of St Martyns: but what rente shee paied for Geldynges Close he knoweth not: and beinge demaunded whether he knewe or have harde that Randall Kirbye or his widowe occupied any landes from Rafe Martyn within the said parishe he knoweth of none. To the seconde he saieth that he knoweth that the said Randall Kirbye and his widow after hym occupied the said Geldynges Close and divers other landes within the said parish of S^t Martyns, whiche he thinketh they helde of the said S^r Anthony Dennye, knight: and further he cannot depose. To the third he can say nothinge. To the fourth he saieth that the said Geldynges Close lieth within the parishe of S^t Martyns and not of St Margarettes: and further he cannot depose. _Signed by_ Sotherton _and the other Commissioners_. 2. _Wilson_ v. _Bristowe_: 1589-90. Petition of Thomas Wilson. “Humbly compleynethe your honors Suppliant and daily Orator Thomas Wilson of Bednoul Greene in the Countye of Midd., gent.: That whereas our moste gracious Soveraigne Ladye Elizabethe, the Quenes most excellent Ma^{tie} that nowe is, was lawfully seised in her demeane as of fee of and in one Close of pasture ground conteyninge by estimacion fyve acres or thereaboutes scituate, lienge and beinge in the parishe of S^t Martins in the feildes in the said Countye of Midd., sometyme in the tenure of one Edwarde Kingston: And she so beinge therof seised by her heighnes letters pattentes under the great Seale of England bearinge date the second daye of Januarye in the second yere of her heighnes moste happy Raigne, for the good consideracions in the said letters pattentes recited graunted the same amongest other thinges to one William Dodyngton of London, gent.”: To have and to hold the said close and pasture &c. for ever. Dodyngton granted the close to one John Tamworth, who granted the said Gildinges Close to Thomas Wilson, who afterwards demised it to Edward Kingston, who “for his better commodytie to be had in therof by digginge of claye to make bricke therof, devided the said close into two partes, viz. three acres and a half into one pece and aboute one acre and a halfe into the other pece: And did dige the greater parte therof to make bricke for diverse yeres, and the residewe ymployed for kepinge of his horses which served the carriedge of necessaries for the makinge of the said bricke. After which division for that the said Kingston did also occupie other groundes thereaboutes lienge in the parishe of S^t Giles and S^t Margaretes, which amongest other thinges were held and occupied as parcell of the possessions of the late dissolved monastery of Abingdon under a demise made by the Quenes Ma^{tie} that now is by her letters to one Raphe Marten whose estate one James Bristowe pretendeth to have in the same landes late belonginge to the said monastery of Abingdon by color wherof after the death of the said Edward Kingston he entered into the said parcell of close so devided conteyninge aboute one acre and a halfe and the profittes therof did and doth wrongfully withhold from your said Orator, clayminge the same as parcell of the landes called Abingdon landes and alleiginge the same nether was nor is any parcell of the said close called Gildinges Close and intituled her Ma^{tie} to the same: by reason wherof great contencion and strife did arise and growe betwene your said Orator and the said Bristowe, touchinge the inheritance of the said acre and a halfe, and after diverse suets as well in her Ma^{ties} Court of Exchequer as elswhere.” Bristowe about ten years past exhibited a Bill of Complaint against Wilson in the Court of Exchequer showing that Henry VIII was seized of Gildinges Close in fee as sometime parcel of Abingdon Abbey and claimed the said Close as farmer to her Majesty by virtue of a lease from Henry VIII to George Sutton, whose estate Bristowe pretended to have. To this Bill Wilson made Answer, and after witnesses had been examined by Commission the Court in Trinity Term 1586 heard the case and found that the lesser part of the close was then enjoyed by Bristowe as her Majesty’s farmer and pretending the same to be parcel of the lands purchased of Abingdon Abbey, and that the greater part then in Wilson’s possession was purchased of the Mercers. It was ordered that Bristow should enjoy the lesser part until otherwise determined, and that as there was difficulty in the proofs concerning the greater part that Wilson should plead further without delay. At the same time an information by interrogatory was exhibited by her Majesty’s Attorney-General against Wilson and his servant George Bright for intruding into the greater part. A trial was held and Wilson’s title was acknowledged. The lesser part was still in possession of Bristow. Wilson now contended that Gildinges Close was “one whole continuous close” till the division by Kingston, and sought reddress. In his Answer Bristowe alleged that Gildinges Close was let to John Walgrave for 21 years yet unexpired at a rent of 5_l._ for the said lesser part and the residue of the Abingdon lands. He alleged that his title had already been before the Court when it was decided on 9 June 1586 that he should enjoy possession for the remainder of the term. This was in 1589. In 1590 Bristowe in a further Answer alleged that the suit was based on an untrue verdict lately found on an Information of Intrusion on lands other than those in question, Wilson alleging that the Queen was lawfully seized of the entire close called Gildinges Close (wherof the lesser part was in variance), which Henry VIII by exchange or purchase acquired of the Abbot of Abingdon. Bristowe now asserted that on 11th March 1565/66 the Queen granted to John Walgrave all that the said entire close by the name of all those lands and tenements in the parish of S^t Margaret near to S^t James in the Field and late in the tenure of George Sutton and purchased by Henry VIII of Abingdon Abbey, to hold for a term of 21 years from Michaelmas 1574. Walgrave, who was thus lawfully possessed, by his will bequeathed his interest to Joan, now wife of James Bristowe, and then widow of Robert Wyse, gentleman. Walgrave died about 20 years past and in 1574 Bristow and his wife entered on the Close and are and were in possession. Bristow denied that any part of the close was granted to Dodington, or that he conveyed it to Tamworth, or that Tamworth conveyed it to Wilson. He alleged that Kingston being tenant to Walgrave under the name of Abingdon lands, lewdly and deceitfully revolted from his right landlord and accepted a lease of the greater part from Wilson as part of the Mercers lands, which had by mean conveyances come to the possession of Wilson. He contended that the Patent to Walgrave meant lands in S^t Martin in the Fields, though misnamed as S^t Margaret[426], an imperfection which was provided for in an Act of Parliament of 18 Elizabeth. Wilson in his Replication repeated his allegations that Gildings Close was parcel of the Mercers lands, and included in the grant to Dodington; and that after he had acquired it from Tamworth he demised it to Kingston, who first divided Gildings Close. He alleged further that Kingston also occupied the ground thereabout as parcel of Abingdon lands under demise by letters patent to Ralph Martin, whose estate Bristow pretended to have, and that by colour of this Bristow after Kingston’s death entered on Gildings Close. He denied that the lesser part was parcel of Abingdon lands, or that the entire close was granted to Walgrave by the letters patent of 11 March 1566. He further denied that Walgrave had a term in Gildinges Close, or that he himself or Kingston were ever tenants of it to Walgrave: or that Kingston held by lease under the name of Abingdon lands from Walgrave, or that the Queen’s demise to Walgrave included Gildings Close. 3. _Interrogatories and Depositions in 1590_ Writ of _Dedimus potestatem_ to Robert Wrothe, Tobie Wood and Thomas Wode, esquires, to certify the Barons of the Exchequer of the truth of the Articles and Interrogatories _ex parte_ Thomas Wilson, gentleman, plaintiff, _versus_ James Brystowe, esquire, defendant. Dated 12 Feb. 32 Elizabeth (1590). * * * * * INTERROGATORIES to be mynistered to examine the witnesses produced on the behalf of Thomas Wilson, plaintiff, against James Bristowe, defendant. _In primis._ Whether you know the said parties Yea or Noe, and how longe have you knowne them? 2. _Item._ Whether doe you knowe one close of pasture ground called Geldinges Close lyinge and beinge in S^t Martins in the feildes in the County of Middlesex, sometime in the tenure or occupation of Edward Kingstone, and howe longe have you knowne the same? 3. _Item._ Whether do you knowe or have you hard that the said complainaunt hath received the rentes of and for the same close of the said Kingston by divers yeares or not, and howe longe have you knowne him to reseive the same? 4. _Item._ Whether doe you knowe or have you hard that the said Edward Kingston to thentent to digge clay to make brick devided the said close into two partes, viz. three acres and a halfe into one pece and about one acre and a halfe into the other pece or noe, and what devision did he make thereof and when was the same made? 5. _Item._ Whether doe you knowe or have hard that the said Edward Kingston had libertie by his lease from the said complainaunt to digge in the said grounde for the makinge of bricke? 6. _Item._ Whether do you knowe or have hard that the said Edward Kingstone did digge the greater part thereof to make brick or noe? And whether did he use or imploye the other part thereof for the kepinge of his horsses in the meanetime and for carreinge necessaries for the makinge of the said bricke? 7. _Item._ Whether doe you knowe or have you hard that the said Edward Kingston did also occupie other groundes thereaboutes lyinge in the parish of S^t Giles and S^t Margarettes or no? And yf he did what were the same landes and wheather weare they belonging to the Monasterye of Abingdon, Yea or Noe? 8. _Item._ Whether doe you know or have you hard howe longe the said complainaunt and his assignees have continewed the possession of the greater part of the said close, and hath taken the profites therof, Yea or No? 9. _Item._ Whether doe you know or have you hard that the said two parcelles of ground called Geldinges Close as they be nowe devided weare one hoole and entier close before the said devision made by the said Edward Kingston, Yea or Noe? 10. _Item._ Whether do you knowe or have you not hard that S^r Anthonye Denny, knight, sometime held the same whole Geldinges Close and by leasse, and that one Lee gathered the rent thereof. 11. _Item._ Whether do you knowe or have hard that one Randall Kirkeby held the said whole Geldinges Close as tenaunt to S^r Anthony Denny or to the Lady Denny his wiffe, or to one Lee, to whome the Ladie Denny as executrix to S^r Anthonie Denny sold the said leasse? 12. _Item._ Whether do you know that after Kirkebies estate ended one Kingston tooke a lease of the said Thomas Wilson of the said whole Geldinges Close, and whether hath not the said Kingston, while he lived and those who had his estate after his death pay there rent for the same to the said Thomas Wilson, or no? 13. _Item._ Whether hath not the said whole Geldinges Close bene taken and accompted the land of the said Thomas Wilson ever since he purchased the lands in S^t Martens of M^r Tamworth? 14. _Item._ What is the contentes of the whole Geldinges Close, and whether have you bine at the measuringe thereof or not? 15. _Item._ Whether have you bine at the measuringe of all the rest of the groundes of the said Thomas Wilson, which he purchased thereaboutes of M^r Tamworth? And yf you have bin what did the contentes thereof appeare to be uppon such measuringe? DEPOSICIONS of witnesses taken in the parish of S^t Buttolph without Algate, London, the third daye of March in the Two and Thirtieth yeare of the Raigne of our Soveraigne Ladye Elizabeth by the grace of God of England, ffraunce and Ireland Queene, defender of the ffayth &c. one the parte and behalfe of Thomas Wilson, gent., plaintiff, against James Bristowe, esquier, defendaunt, before Robert Wroght and Tobie Wood, esquiers, by vertue of her Ma^{ties} writ of _Dedimus potestatem_ unto them the said Robert and Tobie and Thomas Wode, esquier, directed out of her Majesties honorable Court of Exchequer or any two of them. William Jasper, of the parishe of S^t Martins in the feild in the Countie of Midd., joyner, aged threescore and fowre yeares or thereabouts, sworne and examined. To the first Interrogatorie he sayeth that he knoweth the parties mencioned in the said Interrogatorie and hath knowne them by a longe tyme. To the Second Interrogatorie he sayeth that he knoweth the close of pasture grounde called Geldinges Close in the parish of S^t Martins afforesaid, mencioned in the said Interrogatorie, and hath knowne the same by the space of fiftie yeares, and that the same sometime was in the tenure or occupacion of Edward Kingstone. To the Fourth Interrogatorie he saith that the said Edward Kingstone about twenty yeares sithence or more did make a devision of the said close called Geldinges Close and within short time after did digge clay and make bricke in that part of the said close next London. To the Sixt Interrogatorie he sayeth the said Edward Kingstone used one part of the devision of the said close lyinge next Tiburne for keepinge of his horses and other necessaries, and that he made bricke in thother part as afforesaid: But whether was the greater part he doth not nowe well remember. To the Seaventh Interrogatorie this deponent saith that the said Kingstone held and occupied other groundes lyinge about S^t Giles, but whether the same weare in the parish of S^t Giles or S^t Margarettes, or whether the same belonged unto the Monasterie of Abbingdon he knoweth not. To the Eight Interrogatorie this deponent saith that he hath hard that the complainaunt and his tenaunt had the possession of that part of the said close wherein the brick was made ever since the purchase was made from Master Tamworth. To the Nynth Interrogatorie he saith that the two parcelles mencioned in the same Interrogatorie weare one entyer close before the devision of the said Edward Kingstone as afforesaid duringe all the time that he hath knowne the same close beinge by the space of fiftie yeares paste. To the Tenth Interrogatorie he sayeth that S^r Anthonie Dennye held all the said close mencioned in the said Interrogatorie not then devided, and that as yt was said by lease from Kinge Henry theight, and that one Lea the said S^r Anthonie his man gathered the rent thereof to thuse of the same S^r Anthonye his master. To the Eleventh Interrogatorie he sayeth that he knoweth that Randall Kerkebie held the said close called Geldinges Close in the lifetime of thafforesaid S^r Anthonye as tenaunt unto him and that Lea gathered the rent of the said close of the said Kerkebie to thuse of the said S^r Anthonye his master. To the Thirteenth Interrogatorie this deponent saith that the Complainaunt had the part of the close where the bricke was mad as afforesaid, and that the deponent and the neighbours there alwaies thought that the Complainaunt had great wronge that he injoyed not thother part, for that yt was alwaies one entyer close before the division thereof was made by Kingstone as afforesaid. To the rest of the Interrogatories he is not examined. * * * * * Richard Darloe, of the parish of S^t Martins in the feild in the Countie of Midd., inholder, of thage of threescore and twelve yeares or thereaboutes, sworne and examined the day and yeare abovesaid: To the first Interrogatorie sayth that he hath knowne the parties, plaintiff and defendant, mencioned in the said Interrogatorie by the space of many yeares. To the Second Interrogatorie this deponent saith that he hath knowne the said close mencioned in the said Interrogatorie by the space of fortie yeares and more, and that the same sometime was in the tenure or occupacion of Edward Kingstone, brickmaker. To the Third Interrogatorie he sayth that he knoweth that the said Kingstone paid rent unto the complainaunt divers times for the said close, but for how many yeares he knoweth not. To the Fourth Interrogatorie he saith that he knoweth that the said Kingstone devided the said Geldynges Close with a dytche and quick sett into two parcelles, as yt is now devided, to thentent to make bricke in the greater part thereof, which conteyneth about three acres and more. And he further sayeth that the same devision was thereof made by the said Kingstone within verie short time after his entrye therein by vertue of a lease made unto him of the same by the complaynaunt. To the Fiveth Interrogatorie he sayth that he hath hard Kingstone himself say that he had libertie and leave of the complaynaunt to digge clay and make bricke in the said grounde. To the Sixt Interrogatorie this deponent sayth that the sayd Kingstone digged clay for brick in the greater part of the said close and used thother part thereof for grasing for his horse and other cattle and for other necessarie thinges. To the Seaventh Interrogatorie he saith that he knoweth that the said Kingstone occupied and held other groundes within the parish of S^t Martins afforesaid where he made brick, but he doth not knowe that he held any grounds in the parish of S^t Giles or S^t Margarettes or eyther of them, or anye belonginge unto the Monasterie of Abbingdon. To the Eighth Interrogatorie he saith that he knoweth that the complaynaunt and his tenauntes have continewed the possession of the greater part of the close wherein the brick was made and taken the profittes thereof ever sithence he the complaynaunt purchased the same of M^r Tamworth, being above twenty yeares past. To the Nynth Interrogatorie he saith that he certenly knoweth that the said two parcelles of ground mencioned in the said Interrogatorie was alwaies before the devision made by Kingstone afforesaid one entyer close. To the Tenth Interrogatorie this deponent saith that he hath hard that S^r Anthonie Dennye held the said Geldinges Close by lease, but from whome he knoweth not, neyther whether the said Lea gathered the rentes thereof yea or no. To the Eleventh Interrogatorie he sayeth that he well knoweth the said Randall Kerkebie held the said Geldinges Close in the lyftime of the said S^r Anthonie and as he taketh yt paid his rent for the said close to the said S^r Anthonie. To the Twelveth Interrogatorie he sayeth that after thexpiracion of Kerkebie his lease Kingstone tooke the whole Geldinges Close of the complaynaunt for yeares and that Kingstone in his life time paid rent there fore yearly unto the said complaynaunt and his widowe after his decease did paye rent unto the complaynaunt also for the same untill such time as she surrendered her terme therein unto the complaynaunt. To the Thirteenth Interrogatorie he saith that for his part he hath taken yt and hath hard yt commonly reported and taken by others that all the said Geldinges Close of right ought to be the said complaynaunts ever sythence his purchase from M^r Tamworth. To the Fourteenth Interrogatorie he sayth that he was at the measuringe of the said close by M^r Barron Sotherton and Robert Wroth, esquier, and others about foure yeares now past as he remembreth, at which time there was a plott taken thereof and certefied unto the Exchequer: unto which plott for the contentes thereof he referreth himselfe. To the Fiftenth Interrogatorie he saith that about foure yeares past he was at the measuringe of the said ground mencioned in the said Interrogatorie, and as he remembreth there was a plott thereof made also and certefyed as afforesaid, to the which likewise he referreth himselfe for the quantitie thereof. _Signed_: Robert Wrothe, Tobias Woode. * * * * * _Indorso_: Anthonye Harris of S^t Martyns in the feild in the Countie of Midd., butcher, aged fyftie and fowre yeares or thereaboutes, sworne and examined: To the First Interrogatorie he saith that he hath knowne the complaynaunt by the space of these five and twenty yeares, but the defendant he knoweth not. To the Second Interrogatorie he saith that he hath knowne by the space of these five and thirtie yeares the close called Geldinges Close mencioned in the said Interrogatorie, sometime in the occupacion of one Edward Kingstone. To the Third Interrogatorie he saith that the said Kingstone tould this deponent that he had taken Geldinges Close by lease for yeares from the complaynaunt, but of payment of any rent he knoweth not. To the Fourth Interrogatorie this deponent saith that the said Kingstone, within short time after he had taken his lease of the complaynaunt, devided the same as yt now lyeth devided, and uppone the devision digged clay and made bricke in the greater part thereof lyinge next London. To the Sixt Interrogatorie he saith that the said Kingstone digged clay and made bricke in the greater part of the said Geldinges Close, and for thother part thereof this deponent doth not remember to what use he put the same. To the Seaventh Interrogatorie this deponent saith that he, this deponent, never knewe that the said Kingstone occupied any ground within the parish of S^t Giles and S^t Magarettes or apperteininge unto the Monasterie of Abbingdon: but saith that he occupied other groundes in the parish of S^t Martins besides Geldinges Close, which he imployed to makinge of bricke. To the Eight Interrogatorie he saith that he knoweth that the complaynaunt and his tenauntes have continewed the possession of the greater part of the said Geldinges Close and sythence his purchase thereof from Master Tamworth. To the Nynth Interrogatorie he sayeth that he well remembreth that before such time as the devision afforesaid made by the said Kingstone the said Geldinges Close was one whole entyer close. To the Twelveth Interrogatorie he saith that he well knoweth as afforesaid that the said Kingstone had a lease from the compleynaunt, but he knoweth nothinge of the payment of the rent. To the Thirtenth Interrogatorie he saith that the whole Geldinges Close ever sythence the compleynauntes purchase from M^r Tamworth hath bene of right reputed and thought to be the land of the compleynaunt. To the Fourtenth Interrogatorie he saith that both the said devisions of the said Geldinges Close make neere five acres, but saith he was never at the measuringe thereof. To the rest of the Interrogatories he is not examined. _Signed_: Robert Wrothe, Tobias Woode. II. SURVEY OF THE HOUSES AT “PICKADILLEY” IN 1651[427] A tenement strongly builded with brick, and covered with tile, consisting of one seller, one hall, a kitchen and a larder below staires, and in the first story above staires 2 chambers and a closet there; and over the same 2 garret roomes: which together with one court-yard, a garden and a backside, conteyneth by estimacion 3 roods, now in the occupation of M^{rs} Baker, and is worth xv _li._ A tenement (adjoyning to the wall of the said M^{rs} Bakers garden north)[428] built with brick and covered with tile, consisting of one roome below staires and in the first story above staires one chamber, and over the same one garret roome; as also adjoyninge to the same one faire stable: which together with a small platte before the doore, conteyneth by estimacion one rood, and is now in the occupation of the said M^{rs} Baker, and is worth iij _li._ A tenement, built as aforesaid, adjoyning the south parte of the first above mencioned tenement, consisting of six roomes below staires, and in the first storie above staires six roomes and over the same six garret roomes: as also one coach-house built with timber and board, and covered with Flanders tile. The ground whereon the said houseing stand together with a court-yard, gardens, and other backsides conteyneth by estimacion 2 roods: now in the occupation of M^r Kilvert, and worth _per ann._ xxij _li._ A tenement adjoyning to the south parte of the last mencioned tenement, built as aforesaid, consisting of two roomes and a small wash house below staires, and above staires in the first storie 2 chambers, and over the same 2 garret roomes; and nere adjoyning one large coach house: as also another range of building, consisting of 4 stable roomes and one coach-house, all lofted over: the ground whereon the said houseing stand conteyneth by estimacion 2 roods: now in the occupation of Simon Chambers, and is worth _per ann._ xx _li._ A tenement adjoyning to the south parte of the last mencioned tenement, built with timber and Flemish wall, and covered with thatch: consisting of one room below staires, and one room over the same: as also one stable and three small sheads, and one range of sheads adjoyning to the last mencioned 4 stables. The ground whereon the said houseing stand together with the courtyard and backside conteyneth by estimacion 2 roods: now in the occupacion of Robert Newell, and is worth _per ann._ vj _li._ A tenement called by the name of the Signe of The Crowne, stronglie built with bricke and tile: consisting of one seller divided into one kitchen and a buttery there: and over the same two roomes divided into Drinking Rooms: and in the first story above staires two chambers, and over the same two garret roomes: as also one stable standing backwards, one stable strongly built with bricke and covered with tile: the ground whereon the said houseing stand together with the courtyard conteyneth by estimacion one rood: now in the occupation of John Marshall, and is worth _per ann._ xiij _li._ vj _s._ viij _d._ A tenement called by the name of the Signe of The Feathers, to the east part of the last mencioned tenement, built as aforesaid, consisting of the like roomes, ground and valluacion: now in the occupation of William Reyner, and is worth _per ann._ xiij _li._ vj _s._ viij _d._ A tenement called by the name of the Signe of The Hornes, adjoyning to the east parte of the last mencioned tenement: built with bricke and part with timber and Flemish wall, and covered with tile: consisting of one seller and two roomes below staires, and in the first storie above staires 2 roomes, and over the same 2 garret roomes: as also 2 sheades, the one used for a buttery and the other for a stable: now in the occupation of Wm. Wolfe, and is worth _per ann._ viij _li._ A tenement, built as aforesaid, consisting of one room below staires, and one above staires: the ground whereon the tenement and the last mencioned tenement standeth together with the courtyard and backside conteyneth by estimacion 1 rood: now in the occupation of William Washe, and is worth _per ann._ xl _s._ A tenement built as aforesaid consisting of two roomes below staires and two above staires: as also one decayed barne built with timber and boards and covered with tile: the ground whereon the buildings stand together with the yard and backside conteyneth by estimacion two roods: now in the occupation of Ann Goswell, and is worth _per ann._ viij _li._ A tenement built with brick and covered with tile, consisting of two rooms below staires and one room above staires: as also one garden: now in the occupation of Samuell Scott, and is worth _per ann._ 1 _s._ Here endeth that Range wherein M^{rs} Bakers house standeth, abutting one [the] way leading from S^t Giles towards Knightsbridge south, and the land of M^r Poultney north and east, and a foot path leading from Peckadilley towards the Windmill west. Total cxiij _li._ iij _s._ iiij _d._ III. THE EARLY MAPS OF LONDON So much of the history here given depends on a comparative study of the early maps in relation to the Plan of 1585 that some brief account of their character and respective value is necessary. The most ancient map of London is Hoefnagel’s plan published in the _Civitates Orbis Terrarum_ of Braun and Hogenberg in 1572. This map is in part at least based on material drawn before 1561, since it represents St Paul’s with its spire. Hoefnagel’s plan is closely related to the map which passes under the name of Ralph Agas. The Agas map is on a much enlarged scale, but was either based directly on Hoefnagel or in part on the same material. The existence of some varieties of detail points to the latter alternative as the more likely. The Agas map was originally drawn in the reign of Elizabeth and was thus nearly contemporaneous with our Plan. An Elizabethan copy existed in the eighteenth century and was used by George Vertue for his reproduction published in 1737. But the only original copies now known to be extant are of a later edition published in the reign of James I. In using the Agas map it must not be forgotten that it is partly a pictorial view as well as a map, and exact topographical accuracy is not to be expected. It is not drawn regularly to scale and in the section with which we are concerned the fields are represented in a kind of perspective. Thus whilst St Martin’s Field and the closes between Hedge Lane and the lane which became the Haymarket contain some valuable detail, the representation of the fields to the north of “the road to Redinge” (Piccadilly) and about St Giles is very imperfect and cannot be treated as a map. As a rule the representation of the buildings in the Agas map is conventional: the view of the church of St Martin-in-the-Fields is one of the exceptions and appears to be authentic. The map given by John Norden in his _Speculum Britanniae_ in 1593 is on too small a scale for our purpose. After that, apart from pictorial views, we have nothing of importance till the map published in 1658 by William Faithorne and Robert Newcourt. Only two copies are known to exist; one at Paris and the other in the British Museum. The material for Faithorne’s map seems to have been compiled between 1643 and 1650, but since the exact date of any detail must be uncertain it has here been referred to as dated 1658; it must, however, be borne in mind that the true date of the material is somewhat earlier. Faithorne’s map is a great advance on the Agas map. But it is still pictorial and cannot therefore be treated as an accurate topographical survey; this is particularly noticeable in the relationship of the Military Ground to Piccadilly. On the other hand, there seems to have been an endeavour to show the principal buildings accurately, and in spite of their small scale the views of them are not without value. Owing to the manner in which the original sheets were divided it is impossible to give in a single plate the whole area with which we are here concerned; in this instance at all events the sheets could not be fitted exactly together. Hollar’s View of West Central London was completed after 1656 and before 1665; it has been reproduced from an unique example. As regards its material it is probably a little later in date than Faithorne’s map. Both pictorially and as a map it is much superior, and in its representation of important buildings may generally be trusted. But topographical accuracy is still in some degree sacrificed to picturesque detail. Hollar’s View is, however, a beautiful piece of workmanship, and it is unfortunate that it includes only the eastern part of the area with which we are concerned. For convenience its date is referred to here as 1658, but it may be a little later. Porter’s map of 1660 and Jonas Moore’s map of 1662 are not on a sufficient scale for our purpose. The map of London “as now rebuilt after the late Fire,” which was published by Philip Lea about 1673, is of interest for its representation of what did not exist but was possibly then in contemplation[429]. John Ogilby’s great map of London published in 1677 unfortunately does not extend far enough west to be of service here. With the map published in 1682 by Robert Morden and Philip Lea we come to the first map on a large scale and topographically exact which includes the western district. Though it is convenient to refer to it as Morden and Lea the credit of it really belongs to Ogilby and his wife’s grandson William Morgan. Morgan in the dedication of the map to Charles II describes it as made “in prosecution of the Survey begun by Mr Ogilby.” For the present purpose it is the first survey of London made on scientific lines, and on a scale--300 feet to an inch--sufficiently large to be of real service. Individual buildings and minor streets and courts are shown by numbers, which even in the original are often not easily deciphered. This does not, however, affect the value of the map for general topographical study, and there seems to be no doubt that we have in it an accurate representation of London as it was very shortly before the date of publication. Morden and Lea’s map was several times reprinted down to 1732. The edition of 1682 was dedicated to Charles II and bore his portrait, with much ornamental filling of spaces not yet built over. About 1690 an edition dedicated to William III and Mary appeared. In this much of the ornament was removed to make room for new additions. The original part of the map does not, however, seem to have received any material alteration or revision[430]. Later copies of this edition retained the dedication to William and Mary with their portraits, but with further omissions of ornament to make room for fresh additions. One such copy in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries nevertheless shows Hanover Square and New Bond Street, though perhaps rather as projected than as actually completed. But its date, in spite of the dedication, cannot be earlier than 1715. For the purpose of historical topography the edition of 1682 is the only one of importance. Morden and Lea’s map was the basis of the series of Ward and Parish plans drawn by Richard Blome, who died in 1705[431]. In Hatton’s _New View of London_ there is a map drawn in 1707, which, though on a small scale and of no great merit, is of some interest as showing the extension of building at that date. There are various unprinted plans of the early years of the eighteenth century which are of value, especially some of the Conduit Estate at the Guildhall[432] and one in the Crace Collection[433]; the latter includes nearly all the area west of Wardour Street; so far as can be judged it was certainly later than 1708 and earlier than 1713. The series of parish maps in Strype’s edition of Stow’s _Survey_, which was published in 1720, are based on the maps drawn by Richard Blome. The originals, however, do not seem to have been fully brought up to date, and thus whilst they sometimes give details which do not appear in Strype’s text, they sometimes retain features which had vanished long before[434]. They cannot therefore be accepted as positive evidence of the character of the streets in 1720 unless corroborated from other sources. Nevertheless they are our most valuable and accurate representations of London in the early eighteenth century, though not convenient for reproduction here. John Rocque’s great map of London, published in 1746, is both in its scale (200 feet to an inch) and its character superior to the map of Morden and Lea. For the present purpose it is of special interest as showing our area not long after building was completed and before any material alteration had taken place in the lay out of the streets. In it we can best trace how the fields as shown in the Plan of 1585 had determined the general configuration of the future streets. In 1763 Rocque published a map of London and its environs. This later map has been chosen for reproduction here because the scale did not require reduction, whereas the map of 1746 would have lost much of its peculiar value if reduced to a size convenient to this book. Apart from the scale and from the omission of the names of some of the less important streets the map of 1763 does not differ materially for London itself from that of 1746. The maps of Hoefnagel, Agas, Faithorne, Hollar, Jonas Moore, Morden and Lea (1682) and Rocque (1746) have all been reproduced by the London Topographical Society, in whose publications they can most conveniently be consulted. [Illustration: The Plan of 1585, with an underprint showing its relation to the modern streets] FOOTNOTES: [1] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, xvii. 105. [2] A fuller account of the Plan will come more conveniently later. See pp. 27-31. [3] _Calendar of Inquisitions_, iv. 299. [4] _Cal. Close Rolls_, Edward III, iii. 339. [5] See _Stonor Letters and Papers_, i. p. xvi. (Camden Soc.). [6] The record is imperfect. [7] Placita de Banco, Roll 867, m. 457. [8] _Cal. Pat. Rolls_, Henry VII, i. 316. [9] Westminster Abbey Muniments, 17127. [10] Westminster Abbey Muniments, Reg. I. ff. 68, 124. [11] _Id._ f. 15. [12] See p. 8. [13] Statute 28 Henry VIII, c. 42. [14] See p. 143. [15] The lands with which we are concerned are described on pp. 79-82. [16] Facing p. 161. He was in part misled by the Agas map. [17] Not Cohereshage as in Parton. [18] Two stiles marked in St Giles’s Field on the Plan of 1585 indicate the existence of a path, not necessarily the one referred to. [19] Cotton MS, Nero, E. vi. f. 50. [20] Harley MS, 4015, f. 160. [21] Statutes 28 Henry VIII, c. 24. [22] Given as 27 acres on p. 144. [23] Or Eybury Manor, of which the Tyburn was the eastern boundary. [24] It should be “heirs of Edmund Stonor”; Edmund Stonor died in 1382. [25] Close Roll, 16 Richard II, m. 21, _dorso_, and Ancient Deeds, C. 328. The deeds were enrolled in Chancery on 15th January 1393. [26] See further, pp. 10 and 124. [27] Including Gelding’s Close. [28] See p. 39. [29] Rentals and Surveys, 3/13, P.R.O. [30] See p. 13. [31] _Letter Book_, L. pp. 283-84. I have modernised the spelling of the original English deed. [32] See further, pp. 130-32. [33] See p. 130. [34] _Letter Book_, L. p. 283. [35] See pp. 38, 40. [36] I.e. Conduit Meadow. [37] Westminster Abbey Muniments, Reg. II. f. 65. [38] Rentals and Surveys, 3/13, P.R.O. [39] Westminster Abbey Muniments, Reg. I. f. 147; and Reg. II. f. 210, for a similar entry in 1524. Fostins Close is probably the same as Foskewe (Fortescue) Close which is mentioned in 1585--Ministers’ Accounts, 27 Elizabeth, 1440, m. 16. [40] Ancient Deeds, A. 2489. [41] Ministers’ Accounts, Edward VI, 298, m. 34. [42] Rentals and Surveys, 3/13. [43] In 1540 Laurence held one acre purchased of him by the King and 14 acres which had belonged to the Brotherhood of Our Lady at St Margaret. The positions cannot be determined. Rentals and Surveys, 3/13. [44] Exchequer Special Commissions, 1397. [45] See pp. 57, 58. [46] See pp. 58, 61. [47] See pp. 44, 52-54. [48] See p. 54. [49] See pp. 40, 41. [50] See pp. 102, 103. [51] See pp. 77, 78, 120. [52] Particulars for Leases, Middlesex, Roll II, No. 28; see further, p. 22. [53] See further, p. 130. [54] See p. 11. [55] Augmentation Office, Miscellaneous Book, 219, f. 121. [56] Kitto, _Churchwardens Accounts_, p. 579. [57] Kitto, _op. cit._, _ib._ [58] Patent Roll, 2 Elizabeth, Part 10, m. 9. [59] Kitto, _Churchwardens Accounts_, p. 581. [60] The Close is not lettered on the Plan. [61] Including land in St James’s Field; see p. 5. [62] See p. 11. [63] The whole of the documents in the case are printed in the Appendix, pp. 141-59. [64] Close Roll, 11 Elizabeth, No. 797, m. 16. [65] P.C.C. 84 Drury; dated 30th October, proved 12th December, 1590. [66] P.C.C. 23 Sainberbe; dated 24th February and proved 31st March 1591. [67] _Survey of London: St Giles in the Fields_, ii. 119. [68] _Id._ _ib._ [69] Chancery Proceedings, C. 2. 299/39 at P.R.O.; see _St Giles in the Fields_, i. 4 and ii. 10-14. [70] _Id._ ii. 19-21; Close Roll, 24 Elizabeth, No. 1129. [71] P.C.C. 91 Sainberbe; proved 6th December 1591. [72] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 38, P.R.O. [73] Hatton, _New View of London_, i. 347. [74] These particulars and most of those which follow come from Kitto’s _Accounts of the Churchwardens of St Martin in the Fields_. [75] _Dict. Nat. Biog._ xiv. 373. [76] _Survey of St Giles_, ii. 20, 24, 122. [77] _Survey of St Giles_, ii. 20, 24. [78] Westminster Abbey Muniments, Reg. II. ff. 99, 160; _Dict. Nat. Biog._ xxviii. 192. [79] _Strype_, vi. 79, 80. [80] The Pulteney Genealogy is obscure. Sir William Pulteney was grandfather of William Pulteney, Earl of Bath. He was descended from the Pulteneys of Misterton in Leicestershire, but his immediate ancestry is not recorded either in Nichols, _Leicestershire_, or in the _Complete Peerage_. [81] Kitto, _u.s._ pp. 134, 168. [82] See pp. 44, 45. [83] See p. 102. [84] See p. 71. [85] Kitto, _u.s._ p. 581; see also p. 87. [86] In 45 Elizabeth. Ralph Garland was born in 1576, Registers of St Martin-in-the-Fields. [87] Thomas and Elizabeth Garland were married in 1595. [88] See p. 46. [89] In reality, as it would appear about one and a half acres, being the long strip by the Windmill, not the large close of five acres near the Gravel Pitts as shown on the Plan. See p. 71. [90] The documents imply that it was in 1613, but really it must have been in 1611 or early in 1612; see p. 72. [91] See pp. 57, 58. [92] Chancery Proceedings, C. 2, James I, B. 17/73. I gave a summary of John Bridle’s Bill in the _London Topographical Record_, xiii. 48. I had not then deciphered the worn and difficult Answer of Thomas Garland, which proved to be much the more important of the two documents. [93] See pp. 71-78. [94] Reproduced in _Archaeologia_, lxxii, Plate LI. The plan is undated, but reasons are there given (on p. 265) for fixing the date of the Fickets Field plan about 1583. [95] See pp. 143-44. [96] In consequence of the changes of colour, the reproduction of a coloured facsimile (which would have been in some sense misleading) did not seem necessary; at all events it would not have justified the extra difficulty and expense which would have been involved. In the facsimile lately published the colours are denoted by differences of shading. [97] _Survey of London_, ii. 99. [98] On all these points more will be said when the places concerned are dealt with. [99] I am indebted for this suggestion to Mr H. G. Head, F.S.I. [100] Parton, _History of St Giles_, p. 192. Parton’s attempted reconstruction of the ancient church with its supposed round bell-tower is not to be trusted. [101] The view in the Agas map is very inferior. [102] _Survey of St Giles_, ii. 118. [103] _Id._ _ib._ [104] Wife of Robert Dudley, titular Duke of Northumberland. She was created Duchess Dudley in her own right in 1649. [105] _Cal. State Papers_, 1672, p. 551. [106] _Survey of London_, ii. 91. [107] _Survey of St Giles_, ii. 102-3, 105-11. [108] See pp. 6 and 16, with some note of its early history. [109] Particulars for Leases, Middlesex, Roll VIII, No. 36, P.R.O. [110] _Survey of St Giles_, ii. 112. [111] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 24. [112] _Survey of St Giles_, ii. 112. [113] _Survey of St Giles_, ii. 112, from Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 24. [114] See p. 40. [115] _Cal. State Papers_, 1672, p. 351. [116] _Cal. State Papers_, 1689-90, p. 389. [117] _Diary_, p. 121. [118] Close Roll, 30 Henry VI, ap. _Survey of St Giles_, ii. 23. [119] John Bosham had an Inn a little to the west of Clements Inn, which was later occupied by Fortescue. See _London Topographical Record_, x. 73. [120] I.e. Conduit Meadow, see pp. 10, 11. [121] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 51. [122] _Cal. State Papers_, 1611-18, pp. 383, 546. [123] _Id._ 1631-33, p. 44. [124] _Id. ib._ p. 58, and 1635, p. 595. [125] _Id._ 1641-43, p. 453. [126] _Cal. State Papers_, 1661-62, p. 272. [127] See p. 37. [128] See p. 11. [129] Early Chancery Proceedings, 736/47. [130] Rentals and Surveys, 3/13. [131] Ministers Accounts, Edward VI, 298. [132] _Cal. State Papers_, 1638-39, p. 348. [133] Ratebook of St Martin’s. [134] Pat. Roll, 4 James I, part 21. [135] _Wardrobe Account_, 28 Edward I, p. 54. [136] See Kitto, _Churchwardens Accounts_, p. 78. [137] _New View of London_, i. 340. [138] Not Hedge Lane, but a pathway through Mews Close: the land granted was only 332 feet in length. [139] Patent Roll, 4 James I, part 21. [140] _Id._ 9 Charles I, part 18. [141] _Cal. State Papers_, 1667-68, p. 243. [142] Westminster Abbey Muniments, 23206 and 23220 (Rolls of Lady Chapel). [143] _Manners and Household Expenses_, p. 390 (Roxburgh Club). [144] Ministers Accounts, Edward VI, 298, m. 22. [145] Deeds _penes me_. [146] _Lives_, ii. 14, ed. Clark. [147] See pp. 52-55. [148] Early Chancery Proceedings, 616/17. [149] Westminster Abbey Muniments, Reg. I. ff. 79, 88-89, 130-31, 145; II. ff. 267; III. ff. 44, 160. These tenements were some of those let to Dr Huicke; see p. 24. [150] _Survey_, ii. 98. [151] Westminster Abbey Muniments, Reg. II. ff. 43, 167. [152] _Letters and Papers_, Henry VIII, xx(i). 1335 (48). [153] Chancery Proceedings, C. 3, 44/76. [154] Chancery Proceedings, C. 2, James I, B. 15/20. See p. 25. [155] _Cal. State Papers_, 1603-11, p. 482. [156] Ratebooks of St Martin’s. [157] _Londinopolis_, p. 350. [158] _Cal. State Papers_, 1634-35, p. 427; 1638-39, pp. 21, 25. [159] But Cranburne Street is mentioned in the Act for St Anne’s Soho in 1678. [160] See p. 40. [161] _Cal. State Papers_, 1623-25, p. 31; 1628-29, pp. 96, 472, 539; 1629-31, p. 530. _Strafford’s Letters_, i. 48. [162] _Id._ i. 206, 243, 261; _Cal. State Papers_, 1634-35, pp. 47, 197-98. [163] _Cal. State Papers_, 1633-34, p. 428; 1637, p. 96. [164] _Cal. Pat. Rolls_, Edward I, iv. p. 485. [165] _Ib._ Edward II, i. 271. [166] _Letters and Papers, Henry VIII_, ii. p. 1468. [167] Stow, _Survey_, ii. 98, 99. [168] _Strafford’s Letters_, ii. 141. [169] In the Ratebook for 1654 fifteen persons appear as resident in the Mews. [170] State Papers, Domestic, Entry Book 26, f. 103. [171] Dunghill Yard in the Ratebook for 1669. [172] _Cal. State Papers_, 1673, p. 124; 1679-80, pp. 295-96. [173] Clarke, _Life of James II_, i. 579. [174] See p. 55. [175] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 73. The waste ground is described in Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex 58, as belonging to Lord Howard of Escrick. [176] See p. 11. [177] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 58. [178] _Complete Baronetage_, iv. 99, with extracts from the parish registers. Henry Oxenden had administration of his wife’s estate on 30th December 1638--Admonition Act Book, 1638, f. 240. [179] Admonition Act Book, 1641, f. 82. [180] See p. 55. [181] See pp. 14 and 44. [182] See p. 47. [183] The Earls of Manchester, Arundel, and Dorchester. [184] See p. 60. [185] _Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne_, pp. 233-34, by the Duke of Manchester. See also State Papers, Domestic, Charles I, vol. clxxxi. No. 27. [186] _Cal. State Papers_, 1631-33, p. 132. [187] Collins, _Sydney Papers_, ii. 472, 490, 492, 682; _Cal. State Papers_, 1649-50, p. 412. [188] No doubt at the later Sidney Alley. [189] State Papers, Domestic, Docquets, 25, No. 10. [190] _Cal. State Papers_, 1673-75, p. 526; 1675-76, p. 262; 1679-80, p. 399. [191] _Id._ 1678, p. 626. [192] _Middlesex County Records. Session Books_, p. 201. [193] Chancery Proceedings, James I, B. 17/73. In one place the area is given as one and a half acres, in another as two acres; the former seems to be more correct. [194] Harley MS, 5900 f. 45. There is no mention of it in Birch’s _Life of Prince Henry_. [195] There is some reason to suppose that the sale by the Garlands was earlier than 1613 (the date which they gave in the Chancery Proceedings); but probably it was not before 1611 or 1612. [196] Patent Roll, 8 James I, Part 32. In 1547 William Wilkynson held two acres of Burton Lazar Land in St Martin’s Field. Ministers Accounts, Edward VI, 298, m. 22. [197] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 55. [198] The Survey has abutting “East”; this must be an error for “West.” The description of the Lane indicates Hedge Lane, and the Military Garden did not extend so far east as St Martin’s Lane. [199] The Ratebook for 1627 is the first to give the names regularly under streets. This is an exception, and did not become the practice till much later. [200] See p. 53. [201] p. 346. [202] _Cal. State Papers_, 1658-59, p. 287. [203] Part I, Canto 11, lines 171-2. It means of course that Orsin’s training had been at the bear-garden. [204] _Cal. State Papers_, 1660-61, p. 492. [205] _New View of London_, i. p. xlii. [206] The Garland or Golightly land. [207] The land leased to Eldred and Whitmore. [208] State Papers, Domestic, Charles II, vol. 112. [209] Patent Roll, 28 Charles II, Part 5, No. 4. The grant was made to Roger and Thomas Whitley on trust for Lord Gerrard. [210] _Soho and its Associations_, p. 64. In Rocque’s map of 1746 it is called Bearbone Square. [211] _Strafford’s Letters_, i. 207. [212] Particulars for Leases, Middlesex, Roll VIII, 31 at P.R.O. [213] Marked B. 2 on the Plan. [214] For Doghouse Close see p. 120. [215] There is a plan of the Duke of Portland’s Soho Estate, drawn at the time of its sale in 1794, in the Crace Collection, xii. 38. [216] _Cal. State Papers_, 1637, p. 190. [217] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 38. [218] Additional MS, 22060, ff. 8-11. [219] _Machyn’s Diary_, p. 292. [220] See further, p. 120. [221] St Anne’s Soho Act of 1678 from the original at the House of Lords: the Act is not printed. [222] Rimbault, _Soho and its Associations_, pp. 20, 99, 162. [223] _Diary_, ii. 302. [224] _Nollekens and his Times_, p. 53. [225] Hatton: “The Lord Carlisle his house is on the east side of Kings Square.” [226] See p. 121. [227] See p. 65. Most, if not all, occur in the Ratebook of St Anne’s Soho for 1691. [228] See p. 26. [229] _Middlesex County Records_, ii. 227. The date is 20 James I, i.e. between 24th March 1622 and 23rd March 1623. [230] Chancery Proceedings, C 2, James I, B. 17/73. [231] 16th April 1623. “Robertus Baker, scissor, sepultus erat in ecclesia.” [232] _Cal. State Papers_, Domestic, 1635-36; p. 462, see p. 80. [233] This statement does not occur in the original edition of 1596. [234] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 73. On account of its importance it is printed in full on pp. 159-61. [235] The Survey inverts the order of the first two houses. [236] It is shown in Morden and Lea’s map and is mentioned both by Hatton and Strype. [237] _Cal. State Papers_, 1631-33, p. 89. The name of the Countess of Shrewsbury appears in the Ratebook for 1631, but in no other year. Pickadilly is not there mentioned, but the Countess appears in the same list with Isabel Ridley and John Wood. Mrs Baker does not appear. [238] Now Great Windmill Street. [239] See p. 77. [240] See p. 112. [241] For the will of Samuel Baker of St Clement Danes, who died in 1624, see _P.C.C._ 12 Byrde. [242] I.e. 1615. [243] _Strafford’s Letters_, ii. 150. [244] _Cal. State Papers_, 1637, p. 494. [245] State Papers, Domestic, Charles I, vol. 408, No. 178. [246] See p. 52. [247] State Papers, Domestic, Charles I, vol. 424, No. 76. [248] _Cal. State Papers_, 1640, p. 542. For an instance of a similarly heavy fine see p. 48. [249] _Cal. State Papers_, 1665-66, p. 573. [250] See pp. 111-14. [251] See pp. 9 and 39. [252] _Strafford’s Letters_, i. 262. [253] Ministers Accounts, Edward VI, 298, and 37 Elizabeth, Middlesex, 1440. Similar entries would no doubt be found in other years. [254] _Strafford’s Letters_, i. 261. [255] _Strafford’s Letters_, i. 377. [256] See pp. 54, 55. [257] _Cal. State Papers_, Domestic, 1635-36, p. 462. [258] _Strafford’s Letters_, i. 435. [259] _Strafford’s Letters_, i. 336. [260] _Lives_, ii. 240, ed. Clark. [261] Vol. i. p. 422, ed. 1826. [262] Probably as Lammas money: it is so described in later years. [263] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 73. [264] The original has in error “west.” [265] _Cal. State Papers_, 1650, p. 263. [266] Elmes, _Life of Wren_, pp. 301-2, 305. [267] _Cal. State Papers_, 1673-74, p. 474; 1675-76, p. 332. [268] Baxter’s _Breviate_, p. 56; Calamy, _Accounts of the Ministers_, ii. 902. [269] The Survey implies that it was in the upper garden. From the description of the lower garden it is clear that there could have been no room for it there. See further, p. 90. [270] Patent Roll, 8 James I, Part 32. Date 10th June 1610. [271] Compare the later maps which suggest that the Close came farther south than it does in the Plan of 1585. [272] Rentals and Surveys, 3/13. [273] Kitto, _Churchwardens Accounts_, p. 581. [274] See p. 95. [275] Additional MS, 22063, f. 35, at the British Museum. [276] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 73. [277] _Cal. State Papers_, 1673-75, p. 384. [278] _Repertory Book_, 71, f. 133, at the Guildhall. [279] _Cal. State Papers_, 1668-69, pp. 3, 93. [280] _Diary_, vii. 281; viii. 261, 281, 286. [281] This character of Suffolk Street points to its development independently of James Street. See p. 90. [282] _Diary_, ii. 68, ed. Bray. [283] _Cal. State Papers_, 1677-78, pp. 101, 490. [284] _Portland MSS_, v. 498 (Hist. MSS Comm.). [285] It is now Crown property. [286] This seems to receive confirmation from the mention of Col. Panton’s vaults under the Tennis-Court in the Ratebook for 1717. [287] See p. 86. [288] Allardyce Nicoll, _Early Eighteenth Century Drama_, p. 272. Tennis-courts were similarly converted into theatres at Paris. [289] See Marshall, _Annals of Tennis_; Noel and Clark, _History of Tennis_, i. 9-13; and _Notes and Queries_, 11th Series, iv. 231. [290] _Portland MSS_, iii. 249 (Hist. MSS Comm.). [291] _Diary_, i. 365, ed. Bray. [292] _Cal. State Papers_, 1660-61, p. 177. [293] _Id._ 1663-64, p. 104. [294] _Cal. State Papers_, 1681, p. 246. [295] _Id._ p. 434. [296] _Id._ 1663-64, pp. 588, 625; 1664-65, p. 328. [297] Allardyce Nicoll, _Early Eighteenth Century Drama_, pp. 12, 272. [298] _Survey_, ii. 664. [299] _Cal. State Papers_, 1653-54, p. 366; 1654, pp. 39, 311; 1656-57, p. 71. [300] Dasent, _St James_, pp. 265-67, from State Papers, Domestic, Warrant Book 7. [301] _Ib._ pp. 5, 6 from State Papers, Domestic, vol. 340, No. 239. [302] _Diary_, iii. 268, v. 259. [303] Additional MS, 22063; for the part relating to St James’s Square see Dasent, p. 19. As to Round Rundles see pp. 100, 101. [304] See pp. 72, 73, 79. [305] p. 345. [306] _Portland MSS_, iii. 213, 215. [307] _Cal. State Papers_, 1660-61, p. 506. [308] Now Great Windmill Street. [309] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 73. [310] Additional MS, 22060, f. 12, at the British Museum. [311] Additional MS, 22060, f. 7. [312] Called Round Ryngles on p. 143. [313] Additional MS, 22060, f. 7. [314] Additional MS, 22063. [315] Jonas Moore’s map in 1662 shows a line of houses at this point. [316] Additional MS, 22060, f. 5. [317] Rentals and Surveys, 3/13, P.R.O. Thomas Swallow also appears there in connexion with other plots; one of two acres has been previously supposed to explain the name. [318] Ministers Accounts, Elizabeth, Middlesex, 1440, m. 17. _Thomas_ must be an error; no Thomas Golightly appears in the Churchwardens Accounts, and the land was held by Widow Golightly. [319] Patent Roll, 8 James I, Part 32. [320] See p. 110. [321] Additional MS, 22060, f. 12. [322] _Britannia_, Introduction. [323] Ship Yard still appears in the later editions of that map; this suggests that the engraving of the original map was not corrected. The name may be due to Allen Chip who lived in Portugal Street in 1673. [324] The _later_ editions of Morden and Lea’s map show a small building within the grounds of Burlington House, nearly in the required position. If this is accurate it may possibly indicate that the Conduit Head survived for a time. There was a pump in the yard of Burlington House long after. [325] See p. 143. [326] Pat. Roll, 8 James I, Part 32; Additional MS, 22060, ff. 2, 24. [327] Pat. Roll, 16 Charles II, Part 15, No. 17. [328] _Diary_, iv. 357. [329] See p. 120 for the precautions the Earl took against building to the north. [330] _Trivia_, ii. 494. [331] Three views of the second Burlington House were published by the London Topographical Society in 1910. [332] The uncertainty in the naming of the street at this date is shown in the references to these houses in the _Repertory Books_ at the Guildhall when quills for the water-supply were granted. Lord Townshend’s house is described as in St James’s Field. The houses of Petty and Clarges as in Piccadilly; and that of Major Clark, which was one of the others, as in Portugal Street. [333] As shown in Morden and Lea’s map. [334] Evelyn, _Diary_, ii. 20, 31, 185, ed. Bray. Pepys, _Diary_, iv. 357; v. 214, 222, 259, 264, 375; vi. 368. [335] _Diary_, i. 167. [336] _Diary_, ii. 178, 184: the work of demolition was already in progress in July 1683. [337] The Ratebook for 1686 gives only two houses on the east side and one on the west side of Bond Street. [338] Strype’s comment probably refers to a time some years earlier than the date at which his _Survey_ was published in 1720. [339] See pp. 132-34. [340] _Diary_, ii. 534. [341] See p. 132. [342] _Report of Committee on letting the City’s lands in 1741_, in the Comptroller’s Office at the Guildhall. The dimensions of the land purchased were E. to W. on the south side 326 feet, N. to S. on the west side 232 feet, E. to W. on the north side 343 feet, and N. to S. on the east side 232 feet. [343] _Middlesex County Records. Sessions Books_, p. 332; the Inquisition on the Writ _ad quod damnum_. Hatton’s map shows the original streets; as also does Strype’s; but the latter was originally drawn before 1705 and was not fully corrected when published in the _Survey_. [344] _Diary_, ii. 8, 78, 197-98. [345] See pp. 143-44. [346] See p. 22. [347] Particulars for Leases, Middlesex, Roll II, No. 28. [348] Kitto, _Churchwardens Accounts_, p. 579. [349] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 38. [350] See p. 76. [351] Elmes, _Life of Wren_, pp. 305, 306. [352] This is the usual statement. But Arundel Street occurs in 1673 long before the marriage, though the name was not permanently in use till later. [353] The common statement that Rupert Street is mentioned in 1667 seems to be due to a typographical error. [354] See pp. 57, 58. [355] See p. 26. [356] State Papers, Domestic, Docquets, 23, No. 260; _Cal. State Papers_, 1667, p. 65; and 1667-68, p. 514. [357] This appears from the plan of the Duke of Portland’s Soho Estate in the Crace Collection, xii. 38, at the British Museum. [358] W. G. Bell, _The Great Plague_, pp. 38, 39. [359] See p. 122. [360] See p. 121. [361] See p. 122. [362] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Series, v. 41. [363] _Middlesex County Records. Session Books_, p. 267. “The Little Way” may perhaps be the north end of Little Windmill Street. [364] _Middlesex County Records. Session Books_, p. 38. [365] See p. 121. [366] _Middlesex County Records. Session Books_, p. 50. [367] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 38. [368] State Papers, Domestic, Charles I, vol. 520, No. 132; see _Cal. State Papers_, 1648-49, p. 434. [369] State Papers, Domestic, Charles II, vol. 289, No. 19; and Proclamations, iii. 286. [370] _Cal. State Papers_, 1671, p. 226. [371] I.e. the north end to which alone the name originally applied. [372] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Series, v. 1. The Edward Street tablet is not now fully legible. [373] See p. 65. [374] See p. 67. [375] See pp. 17-20. [376] Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 73. [377] _Frankland-Russell-Astley MSS_, p. 197. [378] See plan in Crace Collection, xiii. 1, Date _c._ 1710. [379] _Portland MSS_, v. 378, 417. [380] W. G. Bell, _The Great Plague_, pp. 319, 320. [381] _Notes and Queries_, 8th Series, v. 41. [382] Crace Collection, Plans, xiii. 1, Date _c._ 1710. [383] Additional MS, 22060, f. 2. This Pesthouse Close--as to which see p. 115--must be distinguished from the Pesthouse Field with which we have just been dealing. [384] See p. 126. [385] Crace Collection, xii. 2. Blome’s map is the first drawing of the Parish of St James for the one given by Strype. It cannot be later than 1704 and may be earlier; it does not show the theatres in the Haymarket (an omission which survives in Strype). [386] See p. 117. [387] Flower, _Public Works in Medieval Law_, ii. 70. See also p. 8. [388] See p. 118. [389] _Diary_, ii. 159, 169, 202. [390] _Survey_, Book VI, p. 85. [391] _Middlesex County Records. Session Books_, p. 39. [392] Just west of the Circus. [393] See p. 96. [394] See pp. 100-110. [395] Additional MS, 22060, f. 5. [396] Loftie, _History of London_, ii. 411. [397] _Diary_, ii. 314. [398] See p. 132. [399] _History of London_, ii. 1336, ed. 1756. [400] Crace Collection, Plans, xiii. 1, Date _c._ 1710. [401] See pp. 8-11. [402] Rentals and Surveys, 3/13. [403] Repertory Book, 22, f. 216, at the Guildhall. [404] _Id._ vol. 31, f. 306. [405] Guildhall Records, Comptroller’s Office. [406] Books of Grants, i. f. 17 and ii. ff. 32, 102, Comptroller’s Office. [407] Clarendon’s lease is not preserved, but is in part recited in the defendant’s Bill in the suit brought in 1683 by the City against Richard Fryth and others. [408] Cf. Royal Contract Rental of 1628, at the Guildhall. [409] See p. 10. [410] In the Comptroller’s Office at the Guildhall. [411] Repertory, 78, f. 272. [412] Rental of 1754, f. 76, in the Comptroller’s Office at the Guildhall. [413] Preserved in the Comptroller’s Office. [414] _Report of the Committee for letting the City’s lands in 1741_, in the Comptroller’s Office at the Guildhall. [415] Called “Scarborow’s Field” in plan--_c._ 1710--ap. Crace Collection, xiii. 1. [416] _Survey of London_, ii. 666; Seymour’s work is for the most part an imperfectly revised edition of Strype. [417] _Portland MSS_, v. 594, 617. [418] There is no similar correspondence between field boundaries and streets in the lay out of the Grosvenor Estate, which was dealt with as a single whole. See map in C. T. Gatty, _Mary Davies_, vol. ii. [419] _Diary_, ii. 197-98. [420] _sc._ terrier. [421] Uxbridge. [422] Marked in the margin “not in the plotte.” [423] In the margin: “In Saincte Gyles parish.” [424] In the margin: “In Saincte Gyles parish and not in the plotte.” [425] The original is damaged. [426] This might have been due to the parochial changes of St Martin’s and St Margaret’s in 1542, see p. 1. [427] From Parliamentary Survey, Middlesex, 73. [428] The words in brackets are in the margin in the original. [429] See p. 137. [430] See p. 103 _n._; where an instance of a slight variation is also given. Though Morgan’s name disappears from the dedication to the King and Queen, it is retained in the subsidiary dedication to “The Lords &c.” [431] As to one of these see p. 124. [432] See pp. 131, 132. [433] Plans xiii. 1; see pp. 123, 129 and 132. Since it shows the northern extension of Albemarle and Dover Streets it must be after 1708, and since it shows the original Trinity Chapel and Bond Street (stopping short at Burlington Gardens) it must probably be earlier than 1713. But it was perhaps in part based on Morden and Lea. [434] See pp. 108, 116, 122, 123 and 133. The omission of the Opera House in the Haymarket (with the retention of Phenix Yard) and the inaccurate detail of Albemarle Buildings are instances in point. Poland Street is shown on the map, though disregarded in the text. See p. 121. INDEX Aberdeen, Earl of, _see_ Gordon Abingdon Abbey: lands of, 1, 2, 9, 12-20, 28, 63, 64, 76, 100, 101, 103, 104, 114, 123, 127, 141, 143-9, 151-5, 157, 158; their early history, 2-5 Acton Road, The, 65, 135; _see_ Oxford Street Agas, Ralph, the map of London attributed to him, 5 _n._, 33 _n._, 42, 54, 161, 162 Air _or_ Ayre Street, Piccadilly, 101, 103, 112, 137 Albany Chambers, Piccadilly, 106 Albemarle, Duke of, _see_ Monk Albemarle Buildings, Piccadilly, 108, 109, 129, 133, 139, 140, 164 _n._ Albemarle House, Piccadilly, 107 Albemarle Mews, 110 Albemarle Row, 109 Albemarle Street, 108, 109, 131, 163 _n._ Alpine Club, The, 128 Anne, Queen, 34, 111 Apsley, Michael, 45 Archer _or_ Arch Street, 113 Argyll House, 124 Argyll Place, 124 Argyll Street, Regent Street, 124 Arlington, Earl of, _see_ Bennet Artillery Gate, 53 Artillery Ground, London, 58, 60 Arundel Place, Haymarket, 85 Arundel Street, Coventry Street, 71, 113 Arundell, Henry, third Lord Arundell of Wardour, 120 Arundell, Henry, fifth Lord Arundell of Wardour, 113 Aubrey, John, 44, 81 Augmentations, Court of, 14, 41 Austyn, Thomas, 8 Aybrook, 10, 110, 134 Ayre Street, _see_ Air Street Back Mews, 50 Bagford, John, 57, 58, 60 Baker, Mary, wife of Robert Baker the elder, 73, 92, 112, 123; her buildings at Piccadilly, 74-8, 82, 159-61 Baker, Robert, the elder, account of, 72; his land at Piccadilly, 71, 74, 114, 127; his buildings at Piccadilly, 26, 27, 73, 83, 97, 111; his land behind the Mews, 51, 52; owned Conduit Close, 99 Baker, Robert, the younger, 52 Baker, Samuel, son of Robert, 51, 52 Baker, Samuel, executor of Robert, 76 Barbon _or_ Barebones, Praise-God, 62 Barbon, Nicholas, 62, 67 Barbon Square, 62, 63 Bassebourne, John, 44 Bateman, William, Lord, 69 Bateman’s Buildings, 70 Bateman Street, Soho, 70 Bath House, Piccadilly, 111 Baxter, Richard, Nonconformist divine, 85, 86 Baxter, Mr, his stable in the Haymarket, 92 Beak Street, Regent Street, 30, 117, 118, 123-6 Beake, Thomas, 118 Bear, The, St Giles, brewhouse, 22 Bear Croft, 22 Beaumont, Sir Henry de, 12 Beaumont, William, Viscount, 12 Beaumont’s _or_ Beamond’s Lands, 12 Bedford, Earls of, _see_ Russell Bedfordbury, Covent Garden, 41 Belasyse, John, Lord, 95 Belasyse, Thomas, Earl of Fauconberg, 69, 71 Belgrave, Henry de, 6 Belton Street, St Giles, 35 Bennet, Henry, Earl of Arlington, 95 Bentinck, Margaret, Duchess of Portland, 136 Bentinck, William, Earl of Portland, 65, 121 Bentinck, William, second Duke of Portland, 136 Berkeley, Christian, Lady Berkeley of Stratton, 110, 140 Berkeley, John, Lord Berkeley of Stratton, 110 Berkeley, Mary, Lady Fitzhardinge, 93 Berkeley House, Piccadilly, 104, 110, 111, 127 Berkeley Square, 110 Berkeley Street, 110 Berkstead, Colonel, 84 Berwick Street, Soho, 116, 121, 135 Bethlehem Hospital, London, 26, 45; tenement of, at Charing Cross, 26, 45, 46 Bethnal (Bednoul) Green, 21, 150 Betterton, Thomas, 94 Bigge, Huntley, 132 Black Horse Yard, Windmill Street, 74 Blenheim Street, 122 Blome, Richard, 124, 163, 164 Bloomsbury, 49 Blount, Mountjoy, Earl of Newport, 62 Blount, Susanna, Countess of Newport, 85 Blount, Thomas, his _Glossographia_, 72, 73 Blue Anchor, The, Soho Street, 121 Blue Mews, The, 51, 52, 55 Blundstone, John, 75 Blunt, Nicholas, 58 Bocking, Essex, 21 Bolingbroke, Earl of, _see_ St John Bond, Sir Thomas, 108 Bond Street, 1, 108, 109, 127-9, 132-4, 136, 139, 164 _n._; _see also_ New Bond Street Bosham, John, 7, 8, 38 Bowl Inn, St Giles, 35, 36 Bowl Yard, 35 Bowling Greens, in Leicester Square, 54, 55, 80; in Spring Gardens, 79, 80; at Shaver’s Hall, 80-4 Boyle, Richard, first Earl of Burlington and Earl of Cork, formerly Viscount Dungarvan, 39, 104, 120, 128 Boyle, Richard, 3rd Earl of Burlington, 104, 105, 128, 129, 139 Boyle, Roger, Earl of Orrery, 56 Braban, John de, 49 Braun and Hogenberg’s map of London, 161 Brentford _or_ Brainford, the road to, 100, 102, 112 Brewer _or_ Brewers Street, 113, 115, 118, 125 Brick Street, Piccadilly, 110 Bridle, John, 25-7, 72 Bridle, Susan, 25-7 Bright, George, 18, 19, 148, 151 Bringhurst, Isaac, 34 Bristol, Earl of, _see_ Digby Bristow, Francis, 22, 64, 111, 119 Bristow, James, account of, 21-2; his lawsuits with Thomas Wilson, 18-21, 141-59; his lands, 16, 17, 34, 36, 64, 103, 111, 119, 143-4 Broad Street, St Giles, 22, 32, 35 Broad Street, Soho, 115-17, 122, 138 Brook Street, Bond Street, 134 Browne, Sir John, 10 Browne, Richard, 40, 41 Browne’s Close, 65, 119 Brownlow, Sir John, 35, 36 Bruton Street, Bond Street, 134 Brydges, James, Duke of Chandos, 136 Bunche, William, 64 Bunches Close, 64, 65 Burlington, Earls of, _see_ Boyle Burlington Gardens, 106, 108, 127, 129, 131, 164 _n._ Burlington House, Piccadilly, 103 _n._, 104, 105, 128, 129 Burlington Street, afterwards New Burlington Street, 128 Burlington Street, afterwards Old Burlington Street, 128 Burney, Charles, 121, 135 Burton Lazar, Hospital of, 32; lands of, 1, 2, 4, 12-15, 17, 19, 22, 28, 63, 64, 76, 111, 119, 143, 144; their early history, 5-7 Bush, Oliffe, 45 Butler, James, Duke of Ormonde, 107 Butler, Josua, 119 Butler, Nathan, 119 Butler, Samuel, 60 Butteler, John, 10 Byngham, Harold, 18, 23, 149 Cable, William, 72 Calvert, Sir George, 48 Cambridge Circus, 62 Camps _or_ Kemps Close, in St Giles’s Field, 7, 63-8 Carey, Henry, second Earl of Monmouth, 39, 64 Carey, Robert, first Earl of Monmouth, 38, 64, 112 Carleton, George, 46 Carlisle, Earl of, _see_ Howard Carlisle House, 70 Carlisle Street, 70 Carlton Hotel, Haymarket, 94 Carnaby Market, 122 Carnaby Street, 122, 123, 124, 126 Carre Close, 123; _see also_ Four Acres, _and_ Six Acres Castle Street, Leicester Square, 56, 57 Castle Street, Long Acre, 36, 38, 39, 136 Castle Street, Piccadilly, 101 Catherine of Braganza, Queen, 98 Cavendish, Mary, Duchess of Devonshire, 93 Cavendish, William, Duke of Devonshire, 111 Cavendish Square, 136 Cavendish-Holles, Henrietta, Countess of Oxford, 136 Cecil, James, second Earl of Salisbury, 47 Cecil, Robert, first Earl of Salisbury, 42, 47, 48, 53 Cecil Court, St Martin’s Lane, 47 Chambers, Simon, 160 Chambers, Sir William, 106 Chandos, Duke of, _see_ Brydges Chandos Street, Covent Garden, 40, 41 Chapel Yard, Hog Lane, 88 Charing, Cherryng, 5, 6, 41 Charing Cross, 1, 21, 25, 29, 38, 42, 44, 45, 49, 83, 87, 88, 92, 112, 145 Charing Cross Road, 30, 32, 57, 63, 67, 137 Charing Cross Street, 45 Charles I, King, 48, 50, 64, 79, 130 Charles II, King, 43, 50, 61, 64, 89, 91, 98, 108, 163 Charles, Sir Edward, 3, 6 Charles, Joan, 3 Charles, William, 3 Charles Street, St James’s, 96, 97 Charles Street, Soho, 65, 70 Chelsea, 114 Chequer _or_ Checker, The, Charing Cross, 24, 25, 46, 50 Chequer Yard, 46 Chip, Allen, 103 _n._ Chip Street, 103; _see_ Sackville Street Christopher, The, at Charing Cross, 45 Church Lane, St Martin’s, 24 Church Street, Soho, 65, 68, 71 Churchill, John, Duke of Marlborough, 97 Clarendon, Earl of, _see_ Hyde Clarendon House, Piccadilly, 104, 106, 107, 137 Clarges, Sir Thomas, 95, 105, 106, 127 Clarges House, Piccadilly, 105, 127 Clark, Major, 105 _n._ Claypits, Cleypittes, The, close at, 9, 11, 16; _see_ Scavenger’s Close Clifford, Thomas, Lord, 97 Clifford Street, Bond Street, 128 Clifton, Miles, 10 Clinton, Theophilus, Earl of Lincoln, 93 Cock, The, Long Acre, 40 Cock, The, Suffolk Street, 89, 90 Cock and Pye Fields, 37, 38 Cock and Pye Inn, The, 37, 40, 48 Cockshott, Richard, 18, 23, 24, 148 Cockspur Street, 87, 89 Coell, John, 95 Colbroke, _see_ Colnbrook Colman Hedge, Coliereshage, 6, 8, 13, 15, 22, 57 Colman Hedge Field, 6, 7, 16, 64, 65, 143 Colman Hedge Lane, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12-14, 30, 55, 63, 64, 66, 71, 76, 112-14, 118, 119, 143-6; called Coleman’s Lane, 119, and Common Hedge Lane, 66; _see also_ Hedge Lane, Wardour Street, Whitcomb Street Colnbrook, Colbroke, the road to, 2, 5, 8, 25, 29, 71, 97, 100, 103, 124, 143-5; _see_ Piccadilly Colne, John, 49 Compton, Sir Francis, 68 Compton Street, Soho, 65, 68, 71, 114, 118, 121 Conde Court, _see_ Conduit Court Conduit Close, _or_ Condyd Close, St Giles, 7, 16 Conduit Close, Piccadilly, 99 Conduit _or_ Conde Court, Windmill Street, 99 Conduit Meadow, 2, 16, 17, 109, 110, 124, 127, 134, 136, 145; history of, 8-11, 129-32 Conduit Street, Bond Street, 129, 132, 133 Conduits, 29, 36, 66, 77, 83, 87, 103, 120 Constable, Henry, Viscount Dunbar, 80 Conway, Edward, first Viscount, 48, 80 Conway, Edward, third Viscount, 90 Cooke, Humphrey, 45 Cope, Sir Edward, 34 Copland, Alexander, 106 Cork, Earl of, _see_ Boyle Cork Street, 128 Cotton, John, 57 Covent Garden, 11, 15, 39, 139; history of, 40, 41 Coventry, Henry, 85, 86, 93 Coventry Court, Haymarket, 85 Coventry Street, 47, 56, 75, 76, 83, 85, 98, 112, 114, 118 Coverley, Sir Roger de, 69 Crace Collection at the British Museum, plans in, 65, 115, 123, 124, 129, 132, 163 Cranborne Alley, 47 Cranbourn Street, 47 Craven, William, Earl of, 115, 116, 122 Craven Hill Gardens, 122 Crewe, Nathaniel, Bishop of Durham, 56 Criterion, The, Piccadilly Circus, 101 Croft, John, Bishop of Hereford, 89 Crofts, Will, 80 Cromwell, Mary, 71 Cromwell, Oliver, 39, 71 Cross Lane, Long Acre, 39, 40 Crown, The, Piccadilly, 75, 160 Crown Street, Soho, 30, 65, 67; _see_ Hog Lane Crown Yard, Piccadilly, 75 Crown and Cushion, The, New Bond Street, 134 Cutts, Joanna, 121 Dane, John, 8 D’Arblay, Madame, 135 Darlowe, _or_ Darloe, Richard, 18, 21, 23, 147, 156 D’Auverquerque, Henry, Earl of Grantham, 109 Davies, Mary, 134 Davis, Jane, 91 Davis, Mary, 89 Dean Street, Soho, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70 Denham, Mr, 24, 115, 143 Denham, Sir John, 104 Denman Street, 125 Denmark Place, St Giles, 34 Denmark Street, St Giles, 34 Denny, Sir Anthony, 17, 23; grant of land to, 13, 16, 51, 142, 146-50, 154-7 Depon _or_ Dippen, William, 87, 112 Depon’s Close, _see_ Dippen’s Devereux, Robert, third Earl of Essex, 54 Devonshire, Duke and Duchess of, _see_ Cavendish Devonshire House, Piccadilly, 111 Digby, Everard, 44 Digby, George, Lord, afterwards Earl of Bristol, 79, 80 Digby, John, 12, 13, 44 Digbys _or_ Dygbyes Lands, 12, 14 Dingley, Henry, 40, 41 Dippen’s _or_ Depon’s Close, 25, 87 Dirty Lane, 57; _see_ Hemmings Row Disher, William, 39 Dodington _or_ Dodyngton, William, his lease from Queen Elizabeth, 17, 19, 20, 141, 142, 145, 147-50, 152 Doghouse Close _or_ Dogfields, 64, 65, 119-21 Dorset, Duke of, _see_ Sackville Dorset Place, 118; _see_ Hedge Lane _and_ Whitcomb Street Douglas, Charles, Duke of Queensberry, 128 Dover, Earl of, _see_ Jermyn Dover House, 109 Dover Street, 108, 109, 110, 129, 131, 163 _n._ Downes, Edward, 34 Downes, Robert, 33-4 Downes, William, 18, 23, 145 Drury Lane, 36, 38, 144 Dryden, John, 62, 94 Ducking Pond Row, 109 Dudley, Alice, Lady, 34 Dudley Court, St Giles, 34 Duff, Thomas, 10 Dukes Court, Leicester Square, 56, 57 Dunbar, Lord, _see_ Constable Dungarvan, Lord, _see_ Boyle, Richard Dunghill Mews, 50 Dupplin, Lord, _see_ Hay Durham, Bishop of, _see_ Crewe Durham House _or_ Place, 42, 45 Dysart, Lady, _see_ Tollemache Eagle Passage, Piccadilly, 101, 137 Earle Street, Seven Dials, 37 Ebury, Eybury, 3, 45; the Manor, 134 Edward III, King, 12 Edward VI, King, 16, 147, 150 Edward Street, Wardour Street, 115, 116, 120, 121 Eldestrate, 6; _see_ Hog Lane Eldred, John, grants to, 58, 87, 88, 102, 104 Elizabeth, Queen, grants by, 17; her physician, 24 Elliott, James, grant to, 64, 112, 119 Elliott, Thomas, 78 Elm Field _or_ Close, 38, 39; _see_ Long Acre Ely Street, now Ramillies Street, 123 Emblyn, John, 110 Endell Street, 35 Essex, Earl of, _see_ Devereux Evans Row, 109 Evelyn, John, 37, 69, 89, 92, 97, 104, 106, 107, 109, 110, 126, 129, 140 Exchequer, Court of, 18-20, 141-59 Exchequer Office, 36, 37 Eybury, _see_ Ebury Faithorne, William, his map of London, 37, 39, 48, 55, 62, 74, 76, 88, 97, 162 Falcon Inn, Gate Street, 22 Fauconberg, Earl of, _see_ Belasyse Fauconberg _or_ Falconberg Court, Soho, 65, 71 Fauconberg House, Soho Square, 71 Feathers, The, Piccadilly, 75, 160 Fenner, Sir Gregory, 88 Fickets Field, plan of, 27, 28 Fielding, Henry, 134 Fitzhardinge, Lady, _see_ Berkeley, Mary FitzRoy, Charles, Duke of Grafton, 109 Fleece Yard, Piccadilly, 101 Forster, Richard, 7, 8, 124 Forster, Walter, 49 Fortescue, Sir John (1452), 38 Fortescue, Sir John (1491), 10, 11, 38, 40, 51 Fostins _or_ Foskewe Close, in St Martin’s Field, 12 Foubert, Major, his riding-school, 126 Foubert’s Passage, Regent Street, 123, 126 Four Acres, The, 4, 31, 123, 143; _see_ Carre Close Fox, Henry, Lord Holland, 106 Frampton, Richard, 142, 143, 145 Frederick, Prince of Wales, 55 Frederick, Duke of York and Albany, 106 French Church, Soho, 67 French Church, Berwick Street, 116 French players, 94 French residents in London, 56, 67, 68, 116 French Theatre, The, Haymarket, 94 Frith Street, Soho, 65, 68, 69, 70 Fryth, Richard, 67, 68, 131-2 Fulham, 114 Fuller, William, auditor of the Exchequer, 142, 143, 145 Garland, Agnes, 25, 26, 46, 57 Garland, Elizabeth, 25-7 Garland, Ralph, 25 Garland, Thomas, 25-7, 57, 71, 72, 76, 87, 102, 114 Garland’s Hotel, Suffolk Street, 89 Garrard, George, 48, 49, 62, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81 Gate Street, Holborn, 22 Geares, Captain, 82, 83, 84 Gelding’s, Gildinges, _or_ Gueldinges Close, 1, 23, 28, 117, 121-3; lawsuit concerning, 17-21, 141-59 George II, 55 George, Prince, of Denmark, 34 Gerard, John, his _Herbal_, 73 Gerrard, Charles, Earl of Macclesfield, 58, 61, 62, 68, 138 Gerrard, William, 142, 145 Gerrard Street, 61, 62 Gibbs, James, 43 Gibbs, Tristram, 34 Gisby, Edward, 119 Glasshouse Street, 30, 103, 125, 126, 127-9 Golden Square, 115, 117, 140 Goldsmith Street, St Giles, 22 Golightly, Christian, her lands, 4, 5, 15, 24, 25, 46, 76, 86, 87, 102, 103, 111, 143, 144, 145 Golightly, John, the elder, 14, 24, 25, 46, 57, 71 Golightly, John, the younger, 25 Golightly, Thomas, 102 Goodrich, Sir Henry, 118 Gordon, George, Earl of Aberdeen, 124 Goselyn, Humphrey, 64 Goswell, Ann, 161 Goulding, Mr, his land, 24, 35, 36, 144 Grafton, Duke of, _see_ FitzRoy Grafton Street, Bond Street, 109 Grafton Street, Shaftesbury Avenue, 63 Grantham, Earl of, _see_ D’Auverquerque Graunge, John, 35 Gravel-Pits, The, 5, 23, 26, 127, 143 Great Common Field, The, 2, 4, 5, 12, 15-17, 127 Great George Street, Hanover Square, 133 Great Marlborough Street, 122-4 Great Pulteney Street, 116 Great Suffolk Street, 89, 96; _see_ Suffolk Street Great Swallow Street, 103; _see_ Swallow Street Great Windmill Street, 71, 75, 98 _n._, 99, 113; _see_ Windmill Street Greek Church, The, 67, 68 Greek Street, Soho, 65, 68, 70, 71 Green Mews, The, 51 Green Street, Leicester Square, 51 Grey, Anthony, Earl of Kent, 90 Grey, Thomas, Earl of Stamford, 69 Grosvenor Estate, 134, 138 _n._ Grosvenor Square, 134 Grosvenor Street, 134 Grove, Christopher, 44 Guerchy, Comte de, 69 Guildhall, The, maps and plans at, 131, 132, 163 Gunpowder House in Scavenger’s Close, 29, 79, 83 Guppey, Robert, 7, 8 Halifax, Marquis of, _see_ Savile Hanover Square, 133, 163 Hanover Street, 133 Harcourt, Simon, Lord, 136 Hardy, John, 10 Harewell, Francis, 66 Harley, Edward, Earl of Oxford, 136 Harley, Edward, Colonel, 92, 98 Harris, Anthony, 20, 23, 158 Harvey, John, 95 Hassok, John, 45 Hatton, Edward, his _New View of London_ quoted, 34, 42, 44, 56, 57, 60, 68-70, 75, 85, 90, 93-4, 96, 99, 108, 113, 115-17, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 135; his map, 135, 163 Hay, George, Viscount Dupplin, 121 Hay Hill, 10, 106, 110, 131, 134 Haymarket, The, 2, 7, 29, 71, 79, 83, 84, 85, 88, 96, 98, 101, 112, 113, 131, 139, 161, 164 _n._; history of, 92-4; the market in, 92-3; residents in, 93 Hedge Lane, 7, 43 _n._, 50, 51, 59, 65, 84, 87-9, 111, 113, 118, 139, 161 Hemmings Row, Leicester Square, 43, 57 Henrietta Maria, Queen, 64, 79, 95, 108 Henrietta Street, Cavendish Square, 136 Henry VIII, King, lands acquired by, 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 40, 51, 58, 87, 102, 103, 130, 141, 146, 148; constitution of St Martin’s parish by, 1, 41; his physician, 41 Henry, Prince of Wales, 42; his alleged association with the Military Garden, 57, 58, 60; Princes Street said to be called after him, 113, 114 Herbert, Philip, seventh Earl of Pembroke, 56 Herbert, Philip, fourth Earl of Pembroke, and Lord Chamberlain, 80, 81 Herbert, Lady, her house, 127 Hereford, Bishop of, _see_ Croft, John Hewitt’s Court, St Martin-in-the-Fields, 24 Hewer, William, 89 Heywood, Thomas, 59 Hickford, Thomas, his “Great Room,” 85 Higgins, a tailor, mythical story of, 72, 73 High Street, St Giles, 30, 32, 33 Hill, Thomas, 106 Hippisley, Sir John, 48 Hobart, Sir John, 56 Hobson, Thomas, 102 Hoefnagel’s map of London, 161 Hog Lane, St Giles, 6, 7, 21, 30, 34, 36, 63, 64, 65, 67, 71, 88; _see_ Crown Street Holborn, 22 Holland, Lord, _see_ Fox Hollar, Wenceslaus, his view of West Central London, 37, 40, 48, 162 Hoochin, John, 46 Hopper, Edmund, 102 Hopper, Margaret, 102 Horne, Thomas, 36, 37 Hornes, The, Piccadilly, 75, 160 Hosyer, William, 12, 13, 16 Hounslow Heath, 129 Howard, Charles, third Earl of Carlisle, 69, 70 Howard, Edward, Lord Howard of Escrick, 51, 52 Howard, Henry, Earl of Northampton, 42 Howard, Henry, sixth Earl of Suffolk, 90 Howard, James, third Earl of Suffolk, 88, 89 Howard, John, Duke of Norfolk, 44 Howard, Sir Philip, 55, 89 Howard, Thomas, first Earl of Suffolk, 88 Howard, Sir William, 62 Howell, James, his _Londinopolis_, 47, 60, 98; letter of, 80 Huggyns, ----, 17, 23, 147, 148 Huicke _or_ Hewitt, Robert, 24, 45 _n._, 144, 145 Hutton, Christian, 25 Hutton, James, 25 Hutton, Lady, 100, 101 Hyde, Edward, Earl of Clarendon, 81, 104, 106, 107, 110, 131, 132 Hyde, Lawrence, Earl of Rochester, 105 Ifield, Benedict, 91 Inglesby, Sir Henry, 69 Ives, Anthony, 123 James I, King, 42, 43, 47, 57, 58, 64, 77, 87 James II, King, 129 James Street, Golden Square, 117 James Street, Haymarket, 83, 86, 90, 91, 93; _see also_ Orange Street Jasper, William, 18, 20, 23, 147, 155 Jermyn, Henry, Earl of St Albans, 64, 88, 90, 92, 95-7, 101, 105, 109, 137, 139, 140 Jermyn, Henry, Earl of Dover, 109 Jermyn Street, 96, 97 John Street, Golden Square, 117 Johnson, Samuel, 134 Jones, Inigo, 41, 77 Jonson, Ben, 44 Kemps Close _or_ Field, 64, 65; _see_ Camps Close Kent, Earl of, _see_ Grey Kent, William, 50, 111 Kilvert, Robert, 92, 159 King, Gregory, 69 King Street, Regent Street, 117, 123, 124, 136 King Street, St James, 96 King Street, Seven Dials, 37, 38 King Street, Soho, 12, 14, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68 King Street, Westminster, 3, 4 King Street Chapel, 117, 124 Kingly Street, Regent Street, 124 King’s Court, Soho, 65 King’s Head, The, Haymarket, 93, 94 King’s Square, Soho, 65, 69; _see_ Soho Square King’s Square Court, 70 King’s Square Street, 70 King’s Theatre, The, Haymarket, 91, 94; _see_ Opera House Kingston, Edward, 17, 18, 20, 23, 146-8, 150-9 Kirby, Kyrbye _or_ Kerkebie, Mary, 17, 146-50, 154, 157 Kirby, Randall, 17, 23, 146-50, 154, 156, 157 Kirby’s Close, 17; _see_ Gelding’s Close Knaves Acre, 115, 116; _see_ Pulteney Street and Little Pulteney Street Knightsbridge, Knyghtsbrugge, 6, 7, 36, 59, 83, 97, 144 Knyght, Philip, 64 Kyrbye, _see_ Kirby Lamb, Peniston, Viscount Melbourne, 106 Lammas lands and money, 2, 12, 47, 53, 62, 72, 73, 76, 78, 87, 99, 102 Lane, John, 7, 8 Lane, Sir Robert, 25 Langton, Benet, 134 Lansdowne House, 110 Laurence, John, 12, 13, 14, 16 Laystall _or_ Leastall Close, 76, 111-14 Lea, Philip, his map of London, 137-9, 162, 163; _see also_ Morden and Lea Lee, Roger, 17, 23, 146, 147, 149, 150, 154, 156 Lee, William, 146 Leicester, Earl of, _see_ Sidney, Robert Leicester, Countess of, _see_ Sidney, Dorothy Leicester Fields, 47, 51, 52, 54-7, 80, 84 Leicester House, 53-6, 57, 59 Leicester Square, 14, 51; building in, 52-6; residents in, 56 Leicester Street, Leicester Square, 56 Leicester Street, Regent Street, 128 Lennox, Duke of, _see_ Stuart Lennox House, St Giles, 35 Lexington Street, Soho, 113, 116 Lichfield Street, 63 Lincoln, Earl of, _see_ Clinton Lisle Street, Leicester Square, 56 Lissola, Francis de, 39 Little Burlington Street, 128 Little Denmark Street, St Giles, 22, 34 Little Maddox Street, 133 Little Marlborough Street, 122 Little Pulteney Street, 113, 116; _see also_ Knaves Acre _and_ Pulteney Street Little Silver Street, 117 Little Suffolk Street, 89, 96; _see_ Suffolk Place Little Swallow Street, 103; _see also_ Swallow Street Little Theatre, The, Haymarket, 94 Little Windmill Street, 113, 116, 122; _see_ Lexington Street Lloyd, Robert, 34, 35 Lloyd’s Court, St Giles, 22, 34 London, early maps and plans of, 27, 28, 161-4 London, Mayor and Commonalty of, 10, 11, 25, 46; their lands in Conduit Meadow, 11, 16, 129-32 Long Acre, 11, 35, 37, 46, 64, 144; buildings in, 38-40; the street, 38-40, 47, 48 Lopham, Denys, 7, 8 Loring, William, grants to, 64, 112, 119 Lumley, Richard, Earl of Scarborough, 132 Macclesfield, Earl of, _see_ Gerrard, Charles Macclesfield House, 62 Macclesfield Street, 61 Maddox, Sir Benjamin, 128 Maddox Street, Hanover Square, 132, 133 Maiden Head Tavern, Piccadilly, 98 Manchester, Earl of, _see_ Montagu Marlborough, Duke of, _see_ Churchill Marlborough Market, 122 Marlborough Mews, 122 Marlborough Street, 122; _see_ Great Marlborough Street Marshall, John, 160 Marshall Street, 122 Marshland, 6, 7, 16, 22, 29, 30, 35, 136, 137, 144; building in, 36-38; _see also_ Seven Dials Martin, Marten _or_ Martyn, Ralph, grants of land to, 15, 16, 18, 23, 36, 111, 142, 145-51 Martyns Close, 149 Marybone, _see also_ Marylebone Marybone Park, 59 Marybone Place, 135 Marybone Street, 118, 125, 128 Marylebone, Marybone, 11, 38, 133 Marylebone Lane, 135 Mascall, James, 22 Maud, Queen, 32 May, Hugh, 110 Medwell _or_ Maidwell, Mr, his house, 126 Melbourne, Viscount, _see_ Lamb Melbourne House, Piccadilly, 106 Mercers Company of London, their lands, 1, 2, 13, 15-19, 28, 38, 39, 51, 64, 79, 111, 123, 127, 128, 132, 142, 145, 147-9, 152; early history of the lands, 7-12 Mercers Street, Long Acre, 40 Merslade, Meryslade, _see_ Marshland Mews, The, 1, 6, 11-13, 25, 27-30, 43-6, 55, 57, 59, 87, 102, 118, 124; history of, 49, 50; buildings in, 50 Mews Close, 11, 16, 30, 49-51 Mews _or_ Muwes Croft, 8, 9, 11, 51, 52 Military Company, The, 57, 58, 60 Military Garden, Ground, _or_ Yard, The, 14, 64, 65, 112, 114, 162; description of, 57-61 Military Street, 59, 61, 62 Military Yard, The, _see_ Military Garden Mill Street, Conduit Street, 132 Millfield, 132 Minnes, Sir John, 106 Monk, Christopher, Duke of Albemarle, 107, 108 Monmouth, Duke of, _see_ Scott Monmouth, Earls of, _see_ Carey Monmouth Court, Hedge Lane, 51 Monmouth House, Soho Square, 68, 69 Monmouth Street, St Giles, 30, 37, 38 Montagu, Charles, Earl and Duke of Manchester, 62 Moor, John, his buildings in St Martin’s, 48 Moor Street, Soho, 65, 71 Moore, Sir Jonas, his map of London, 98, 101 _n._, 162 Morden, Robert, 162-3 Morden and Lea’s map of London, 37, 61, 62, 75, 93, 103, 105, 117, 125, 126, 127, 134, 162-3; later editions of, 103 _n._, 117, 163 Morgan, Nicholas, 36, 37 Morgan, William, 163 Morland, Joan, 45 Morris, Samuel, 100 Mortimer Street, 136 Morys, John, 87 Mucklow, John, 91 Mulguly Close, 127 Murrell’s Yard, Piccadilly, 103 Nag’s Head, The, Haymarket, 93 Naked Boy Alley, Piccadilly, 103 Naseby, 50 National Gallery, 50 National Portrait Gallery, 43 Navy, Officers of the, their house, 48 Neal Street, St Giles, 36, 37, 39 Neale, Thomas, 37 Neate, The, Ebury, 143 New Bond Street, 10, 108, 131-4, 135, 140, 163 New Burlington Street, 128 New Compton Street, St Giles, 35 New Street, Soho, 116 Newcourt, Robert, 162 Newell, Robert, 160 Newport, Earl and Countess of, _see_ Blount Newport House, 59, 61, 62 Newport Market, 63 Newport Street, 48, 57, 62, 63 New Theatre, The, James Street, 91 Nollekens, Joseph, 69 Norden, John, 162 Norfolk, Duke of, _see_ Howard, John Norfolk House, St James’s Square, 95 Normanby, Marquis of, _see_ Sheffield Norres, _see_ Norys Norris Street, Haymarket, 31, 93, 96, 136 North, Sir Edward, 14 Northampton, Earl of, _see_ Howard, Henry Northampton House, 88 Northumberland Avenue, 41 Northumberland House, 44, 88 Norton, William, 8, 9 Norwich Inn, Westminster, 4 Norys _or_ Norres, Christian, 45 Norys _or_ Norres, John, 45 Nowell Street, 128 Ogilby, John, 69, 103, 137, 162, 163 Old Bond Street, _see_ Bond Street Old Compton Street, 64; _see_ Compton Street Old Soho, 65, 116, 118, 136; _see also_ Wardour Street Onslow, Sir Richard, 69 Opera House, The, Haymarket, 91, 94, 164 _n._ Orange Street, 51, 86, 90; _see also_ James Street, Haymarket Orchard Street, 113; _see_ Archer Street Ormonde, Duke of, _see_ Butler Orrery, Earl of, _see_ Boyle, Roger Osbaldestone _or_ Austbiston, Simon, 73, 80-3 Owen, Lewis, 57, 58 Oxenden, Sir Henry, 52, 55 Oxenden, Sir James, 52, 77, 78 Oxenden, Mary, 52 Oxenden Street, 85, 86, 113 Oxford, Earls and Countesses of, _see_ Harley _and_ Vere Oxford, Merton Street tennis-court at, 91 Oxford Square, 136 Oxford Street, _or_ the Oxford Road, 2, 10, 30, 63, 70, 103, 108, 118, 119, 123, 126, 133, 137, 139, 140; its early history, 134-6 Paddington, 112, 122, 130 Pale Close, St Giles, 35 Pall Mall, 30, 92, 95 Pall Mall East, 89 Pall Mall Field, 95 Pantersmede, 8, 9 Panton, Thomas, Colonel, 78, 112, 131, 138; his buildings at Shaver’s Hall, 84-5; his buildings in Windmill Field, 111-14 Panton, Thomas, Brigadier-General, 85 Panton Square, Coventry Street, 113 Panton Street, Haymarket, 31, 84-6, 90, 96, 113, 118, 136 Panton Street by the Laystall, 113 Parliamentary Surveys, Middlesex: No. 24 (Marshland), 36, 37; No. 38 (Soho), 65, 112, 119; No. 51 (Long Acre), 39; No. 55 (Military Ground), 58; No. 58 (Mews Croft), 51 _n._, 52; No. 73 (Shaver’s Hall, Piccadilly, etc.), 51, 74, 82, 99, 121, 159-61 Paston, William, Earl of Yarmouth, 69 Paulet’s Ordinary, Haymarket, 93 Pembroke, Earls of, _see_ Herbert Pennant, Thomas, his _History of London_, 69, 117 Pennyless Bank _or_ Bench, 24, 106, 110 Pepys, Samuel, 89, 96, 104, 106, 107; “Mr Peeps,” 63 Pesthouse, The, Soho, 121-2 Pesthouse Close, 115, 123 Pesthouse Field, 116, 123 Peter Street, Wardour Street, 116 Petty, Sir William, 105 Pheazes Garden, 113 Phenix, The, Haymarket, 93, 164 _n._ Piccadilly: origin of the name, 72, 73; varieties of the name: Peccadilly, 92, Pickadilly, 72, Pickadilley, 159, Pickadel, 80, Peccadillo, 81, Pickadilla, 73, Piquidillo, 92; earliest mention of, 72; application of the name, 73, 97, 98, 99; first building at, 26, 73; base buildings at, to be demolished, 77; history of the original Piccadilly, 71-8 Piccadilly, the street, 2, 5, 29, 105 _n._, 125, 131, 137, 139, 140; history of, 97-111 Piccadilly Circus, 100, 125, 126 Piccadilly Hall, Robert Baker’s buildings, 26, 27, 72-5, 98, 111; Mary Baker’s buildings at, 74-8, 82, 159-61; the Gaming-house and ordinary, 72-4, 79, _see_ Shaver’s Hall; Henry Coventry’s house, 85 Poet’s Head, The, Piccadilly, 101 Poland Street, Soho, 121, 135, 164 _n._ Poley _or_ Pooley, Edmund, 142, 145 Porter, Phil, 86, 90 Portland, Earl and Duke of, _see_ Bentinck Portugal Street, 98, 105 _n._, 137; _see_ Piccadilly, the street Poulett, John, Earl Poulett, 109 Poultney, _see_ Pulteney Princes Street, Hanover Square, 133 Princes Street (Wardour Street), 113, 114, 118 Pulteney _or_ Poultney, Michael, 24, 74, 76, 99, 102, 104, 112, 114, 121, 161 Pulteney _or_ Poultney, Thomas, 24, 100, 106, 114, 123, 143, 144, 148 Pulteney _or_ Poultney, Sir William, 24, 65, 110, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119 Pulteney _or_ Poultney, William, Earl of Bath, 24 _n._ Pulteney _or_ Poultney Street, afterwards Little Pulteney Street, 115, 116, 125, 138 Pulteney Street, afterwards Great Pulteney Street, 115, 116 Punch’s Theatre, James Street, 91 Pursefield, St Giles, 22 Quadrant, The, 126 Queen Street, Seven Dials, 37, 38 Queen Street, Soho, 65, 70 Queen Street, Windmill Street, 125 Queen’s Theatre, The, Haymarket, 94; _see_ Opera House Queensberry, Duke of, _see_ Douglas Queensberry House, 128 Ramillies Street, 122, 123 Rathbone Street, _or_ Rathbones Place, 135 Raye, Thomas, 11, 16, 142, 146-9 Reading, the way to, 30, 97, 161 Red Cow, The, Wardour Street, 121 Regent Street, 2, 30, 96, 119, 127, 137, 139; the origin of, 124-6 Reyner, William, 160 Riche, Sir Richard, 40 Richmond, Duchess of, _see_ Stuart Richmond Street, 113 Ridley, Isabel, 73, 75 _n._ Rochester, Earl of, _see_ Hyde Rocque, John, his maps of London, 43, 46, 67, 68, 70, 98, 101, 108, 109, 115, 118, 125, 135, 136, 164 Roe, Sir Thomas, 48 Romney, Earl of, _see_ Sidney, Henry Romynge, Henry, 16 Rooke, Sir George, 127 Rose, The, near Charing Cross, 25, 45, 46 Rose, The, St Giles, 144 Rose Street, Soho, 65, 71 Ross, Thomas, 78 Rouncivall Hospital, Charing Cross, 15, 41, 43, 45 Round House, The, St Martin’s, 46 Round Ryngles, Ringles, Ringill, Rundell _or_ Rundles, near Piccadilly, 5, 97, 100-2, 136, 143 Royal Academy, The, 105 Rupert, Prince, 113, 114 Rupert Street, 113, 114 Russell, Francis, fourth Earl of Bedford, 41, 46, 81 Russell, John, first Earl of Bedford, 41 Russell, John (1586), 45 Ryder _or_ Rider, Richard, 55, 63 Ryder’s Court, Leicester Square, 63 Sackville, Lionel, Duke of Dorset, 93 Sackville Street, Piccadilly, 103, 105, 137 St Albans, Earl of, _see_ Jermyn St Albans Place, Charles Street, 126 St Albans Street, St James, 96, 126 St Andrew’s Street, Seven Dials, 37, 38, 48 St Anne’s, Soho, 67, 68, 69, 121, 134, 135 St Botolph, Aldgate, 154 St Clement Danes, churchyard of, 60 St Giles-in-the-Fields, the Church, 1, 16, 28, 29, 33 St Giles-in-the-Fields, parish of, 3; lands in, 11, 22, 23, 154, 155, 157 St Giles-in-the-Fields, the town or village, 1, 2, 21, 22, 36, 144; buildings in, 32-5 St Giles’s Field, 2, 4-7, 15, 31, 63, 64, 136, 143-5; building in, 65-71, 138 St Giles’s Hospital, 1, 5, 6, 32-5; lands of, 8, 9, 13, 58, 63 St Giles’s Pound, 135 St James, Manor or Bailiwick of, 15, 88, 106 St James’s Church, Piccadilly, 88, 97, 98, 103, 126, 137 St James’s Field, 2, 4, 5, 15, 31, 93-5, 105 _n._, 137, 138, 143 St James’s Hospital, lands of, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 103, 106, 114, 143-5 St James’s Market, 96, 126 St James’s Park, 89, 143 St James’s Square, 94-6, 137, 140 St James’s Street, 96, 101, 108, 131 St James’s Union, 122 St John, Paulet, Earl of Bolingbroke, 69 St Katherine’s Hermitage, Charing Cross, 44 St Margaret, Westminster, church of, 1, 3; parish of, 1-6, 102, 141, 142, 146, 148-50, 152, 154, 155, 157; brotherhood of Our Lady at, 13 _n._, 15 St Martin-in-the-Fields, the church, 1, 4, 23, 28, 29, 41-3, 52, 162; churchwardens of, 15, 16, 23, 25, 44, 67; churchyard, 43, 57 St Martin-in-the-Fields, parish of, constituted, 1, 41, 152 _n._; lands in, 3, 6, 11, 21, 87, 102, 114, 142, 145-50, 152, 158 St Martin-in-the-Fields, town of, 2, 29, 41-6 St Martin’s Almshouses, 87, 88 St Martin’s Field, 1, 4-7, 9, 15, 16, 25, 26, 30, 31, 43, 44, 52, 54, 56-8, 61, 63, 136, 161; early history of, 12-14; building in, 53-63 St Martin’s Lane, 1, 12-15, 30, 36, 40, 41, 43-6, 51, 52, 54, 57, 139; buildings in, 46-9, 139; residents in, 48 St Martin’s Street, 51 St Mary’s, Soho, 67 Salisbury, Earls of, _see_ Cecil Salkeld, Sir William, 56 Salters Court, Piccadilly, 101 Sandpit Close, 24 Savile, Dorothy, 128 Savile, George, first Marquis of Halifax, 95 Savile, Henry, 85 Savile, William, second Marquis of Halifax, 128 Savile Row, 128 Scarborough, Earl of, _see_ Lumley Scarborough _or_ Scarborow’s Field, 132 _n._ Scarlett, Thomas, 130 Scavenger’s Close, 9, 25, 29, 31, 54, 79, 80, 83, 87, 90, 145 Scott, James, Duke of Monmouth, 50, 64, 68, 69 Scott, Samuel, 161 Scottish Church in Oxenden Street, The, 86 Scrope, Emmanuel, Earl of Sunderland, 48 Seven Dials, 30, 36-8, 136, 137, 139; _see also_ Marshland Seymour, Edward, Duke of Somerset, 41 Seymour, Robert, his _Survey_ quoted, 94, 133-5 Shadworth, John, 8 Shaftesbury Avenue, 12, 14, 30, 32, 36, 38, 62, 64, 68, 71, 125, 137 Shaver’s Hall, the Piccadilly gaming-house, 73, 90, 93, 97; history of, 79-85; survey of, 82-3 Sheffield, John, Marquis of Normanby, 131 Sherwood, Sherard _or_ Sheriff Street, Regent Street, 125 Ship Yard, 103; _see_ Sackville Street Short, William, 35 Short’s Gardens, St Giles, 35 Shrewsbury, Countess of, _see_ Talbot Shrug, Shug _or_ Sugg Lane, 2, 8-10, 30, 100-2, 117, 124, 125, 137 Sidney, Algernon, 54 Sidney, Dorothy, Countess of Leicester, 54 Sidney, Henry, Earl of Romney, 97 Sidney, Robert, second Earl of Leicester, 51, 53-6, 80 Sidney Alley _or_ Place, Leicester Square, 55 _n._, 56 Silver Street, Golden Square, 117 Six Acres, The, 123; _see_ Four Acres Slingsby, Sir William, 39 Smart’s Buildings, St Giles, 22 Smith, J. T., 69 Smyth, John, 45 Soho, 50, 64, 83, 112, 113, 140; buildings at, 65-71, 120, 138, 139; origin of the name, 66, 69 Soho Fields, 65, 66, 69, 120, 139 Soho House, 66 Soho Square, 65, 68-71; residents in, 69, 70 Soho Street, 70, 118, 121 Somerset, Duke of, _see_ Seymour Somerset House, 77 Sotherton, John, baron of the Exchequer, 142, 143, 145, 157 South Molton Lane, 134 South Molton Street, 135 Spencer, Charles, third Earl of Sunderland, 105 Spitalstrate, 6, 7 Spring Gardens, 79, 80, 81, 83 Squire, Scipio, 39 Stafford Street, Bond Street, 108 Stamford, Earl of, _see_ Grey, Thomas Stanhope, Dorothy, Lady, 105, 127 Stanley, Brilliana, 98 Staverton, Ralph, 16, 22, 111 Stidwell Street, St Giles, 35 Stone Bridge, The, 102, 110 Stonebridge Close, 10, 110, 111 Stone Conduit Close, 4, 9, 29, 102-6, 108, 110, 127 Stonor, Edmund, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14 Stonor, Sir John (_d._ 1354), 3 Stonor, John (_d._ 1390), 3 Stonor, Sir William, 3 Stow, John, his _Survey_ quoted, 29, 35, 45 Stowe, John, 13, 14, 44 Stowe, Juliana de, 6 Strafford, Earl of, _see_ Wentworth Strand, The, 43, 44, 45, 46, 84, 139 Stratton Street, Piccadilly, 110 Street-tablets, 90, 116, 117, 120, 122, 135 Streeter, Robert, 40 Strype, John, his _Survey_ quoted, 38, 47, 49, 51, 56, 62, 63, 67, 68, 70, 75, 90, 93, 99, 104, 108, 113, 115-18, 121-9, 133, 135; his maps, 164 Stuart, Esmé, Duke of Lennox, 35, 43 Stuart, Frances, Duchess of Richmond, 97 Stydolph, Sir Francis, 36, 37 Stydolph, Sir Richard, 35, 37 Stydolph, Thomas, 36 Suckling, Sir John, 81, 92 Suffolk, Earls of, _see_ Howard Suffolk Buildings, 86-90, 93 Suffolk House, Charing Cross, 44, 88 Suffolk Place, Haymarket, 89, 96 Suffolk Street, Haymarket, 89, 90, 96 Suffolk Yard, 83, 88, 90, 95 Suggen _or_ Sugg Lane, _see_ Shrug Lane Sunderland, Earls of, _see_ Scrope _and_ Spencer Supple, James, 99 Supples Buildings, 99 Sutton, George, lands held by, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 36, 103, 104, 119, 142, 146-9, 151, 152 Sutton Court, Chiswick, 71 Sutton Street, Soho, 65, 71 Swallow, Thomas, 11, 102, 130 Swallow Close, 15, 25, 100, 102, 103, 127, 136 Swallow Passage, 126 Swallow Street, 30, 98, 102, 103, 117, 119, 123-6, 128, 139, 140; _see also_ Great Swallow Street Swan Close (Leicester Fields), 13, 14, 43, 47, 52-5, 80 Swan Inn, The, at Charing Cross, 14, 44, 45, 52 Swift, Jonathan, Dean, 133 Swift, Lancelot, 133 Sydenham, Sir Edward, 50 Talbot, Elizabeth, Countess of Shrewsbury, 75 Tamworth, John, 17, 146, 150, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159 Tart Hall, 75, 80 Ten Acres Field, The, 128, 129, 139 Tenison, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, 56, 129 Tennis-Courts, at Spring Garden, 79; at Shaver’s Hall, 82-4, 86, 90; in James Street, 85, 86, 89-91 Theatres, 91, 92, 94 Thrift Street, Soho, 68, 69 Tichborne Street, Regent Street, 30, 124-5, 126 Tiswell, R., 28 Tollemache, Elizabeth, Countess of Dysart, 89 Tottenham Court Road, 135 Townesend, near the Haymarket, 88 Townshend, Horatio, Lord, 105 Trafalgar Square, 30, 41, 44, 45, 50, 89 Trinity Chapel, the original Chapel near Bond Street, 108, 109, 129, 164; the later Chapel in Conduit Street, 129, 132 Tyburn, the brook, 2, 10, 110; the chapel at, 124; the conduit at, 10, 16, 66, 130; the gallows at, 35, 135; the road, 18, 30, 65, 66, 100, 117, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 134, 135, 155 Uxbridge (Woxbridge), the road to, 2, 7, 8, 30, 63, 118, 119, 124, 134, 143-5; _see_ Oxford Street Vale Royal Abbey, Cheshire, 14 Vanbrugh, Sir John, 94 Vane, Sir Harry, 99 Venetian Embassy, The, 105 Vere, Aubrey de, Earl of Oxford, 97 Vere, Elizabeth de, Countess of Oxford, 12 Vernon, Christopher, 119 Verrio, Antonio, the painter, 105 Vertue, George, 43, 161 Vesies Garden, 113 Vigo Street _or_ Lane, 103, 105, 127, 129, 131 Wade, George, Field-Marshal, 128 Walgrave, John, 16, 20, 22, 36, 103, 111, 152, 153 Wallop, Mr, 109 Walpole, Horace, 90 Warbulton, Robert, 8 Warcup, Edward, 92 Wardour, Sir Edward, 119-21 Wardour Street, 2, 12, 30, 63, 65, 70, 114, 116, 120, 121, 135, 137, 139, 164; origin of the name, 120-1; _see also_ Colman Hedge Lane, Old Soho, Princes Street Warwick Castle, 91 Warwick Street, Regent Street, 30, 115, 117, 118, 125 Washe, William, 160 Waterloo Place, 96, 126 Wauden, William de, 3 Webb, John, 104 Wells Street, Oxford Street, 135 Wentworth, Thomas, Earl of Strafford, 80, 81 West Church Lane, St Martin’s, 46 West Street, St Giles, 30, 36, 63 Westminster, 3, 49; train bands of, 59; places at: Gatehouse Prison, 86; King Street, 3, 4; Mote, The, 3, 4, 5; Whitehall, 15, 50, 106 Westminster Abbey, lands of, 1-4, 8, 11, 15, 24, 40, 45; cellarer of, 45; Dean and Chapter of, 24; altar of St Thomas the Martyr at, 44; Lady Chapel at, 45 Weston, Andrew, 18, 23, 149 Weston, Sir Richard, 40 Weybridge, Surrey, 37 Wharton, Philip, Lord, 34 Whitcomb Street, 2, 12, 30, 79, 83, 114; _see also_ Hedge Lane White Bear Inn, The, Piccadilly, 101 White Conduit Close, 145 White Hart, The, Holborn, 22, 24 White House, The, St Giles, 34 White Lion Street, Seven Dials, 37 Whitehall Palace, 15, 17, 77, 120 Whitmore, William, grants of land to, 58, 87, 88, 102, 104 Wigmore Row _or_ Street, 136 Wilkynson, William, 13, 58 William III, King, 65, 129, 163 Wilson _or_ Wylson, Thomas (_d._ 1590), account of, 21; his lawsuits with James Bristow, 18-21, 141-59; his lands, 4, 5, 12, 17-21, 28, 71, 79, 99, 103, 111, 132, 143-5 Wilson, Thomas (_d._ 1591), 21 Windmill, The, near Piccadilly, 4, 21, 25, 26 _n._, 29, 71-4, 76, 78, 98-9, 143, 144, 161 Windmill Field, 2, 4, 6, 9, 15, 17, 25, 28, 71, 120, 140, 143, 144; Colonel Panton’s buildings in, 111-14 Windmill Street, 29, 71, 75, 97, 112, 115, 125; buildings in, 98-100, 112, 113; _see also_ Great Windmill Street Windmill Yard, 71, 112, 113 Wingfield, Hants, 25 Wise, _or_ Wyse, Joan, 22, 34, 152 Wise, John, 22 Wise, Robert, 152 Wode, Thomas, 153, 155 Wolfe, William, 160 Wood, John, 73, 75 _n._ Wood _or_ Wode, Thomas, 12, 16, 51 Wood, Tobie, 153, 155, 158, 159 Woods, John, 130-1 Woodward, Hugh, 94, 95 Wren, Sir Christopher, 35, 66, 69, 84, 85, 97, 120, 138 Wrothe _or_ Wroght, Robert, auditor of the Exchequer, 142, 143, 145, 153, 155, 157, 158, 159 Wyndham, Sir William, 93 Yarmouth, Earl of, _see_ Paston York, Duke of, _see_ Frederick York House, Piccadilly, 106 York Street, St James, 96, 137 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY W. LEWIS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS Transcriber’s Notes. Italic text is indicated with _underscores_, bold text with =equals=. Small/mixed capitals have been replaced with ALL CAPITALS. Evident typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected silently. Except where quoting another source, inconsistent spelling/hyphenation has been normalised. Archaic spelling in quoted passages has been retained. A half-title page has been discarded. End of page footnotes have been sequentially numbered and gathered at the end of the text. Pointers no longer relevant (above/below) have been discarded. To improve text flow, illustrations have been relocated between paragraphs. Cover art created for this eBook is granted to the public domain. *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE EARLY HISTORY OF PICCADILLY, LEICESTER SQUARE, SOHO, & THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD *** Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. START: FULL LICENSE THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license. Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that: • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.” • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works. • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate. While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate. Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org. This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.